Across The Pond | DW-WORLD

Time To Say Goodbye, Part II

Michael said it all better than I probably ever could in his "Time To Say Goodbye" explaining the shuttered doors here at Across the Pond, but let me add a few notes.

This blog brought me a lot of satisfaction for all the reasons Mr. Knigge mentioned -- it succeeded, if I may toot our own horn, beyond my wildest dreams, by getting picked up by the Los Angeles Timeses and Time magazines and the like, and by inspiring fevered debate amongst readers, and in countless other ways. It also had value to me beyond whether anyone saw it; the daily demand of blogging forced me to pay close attention to developing story lines and policy shifts and thereby enhanced my understanding of foreign policy, so I learned a good deal along the way.

Michael made me blush with his kind words, but another joy of the site was reading his work. Not only does the man truly understand U.S. politics and policy, but it was a constant delight getting his perspective on the practices of the U.S. government and candidates for office thereof. He had a special talent for catching our absurdities that only someone who didn't live here would notice, and for contrasting how we do things on this side of the pond to how they do things on his side, and it was always illuminating. Before, during and after Barack Obama's Germany trip, he made this blog THE go-to site for information and analysis, in my opinion. And he's a true pal.

If you're a regular reader, I encourage you to continue to check out all the "interesting links" along the right hand rail in lieu of us. If you value regular insights on foreign policy and politics, my friends at Foreign Policy, Porch Dog and elsewhere will leave you in good hands. DW-WORLD, too, is a great source of foreign policy information whether or not you're from Germany or focused on German news.

Thanks to Michael, thanks to Deutsche Welle and thanks to all the readers over the last year who dropped by, gave us a look, offered their quality insights and smacked us around. Farewell.

The Afghanistan Intelligence Puzzle

With President Obama set to announce a new strategy for Afghanistan, it's worth examining the intelligence problem posed by that country. It is, by any measure, daunting.

Max Bergmann recently wrote that saying Afghanistan is "harder" than Iraq is "Monday morning quarterbacking." After all, the United States muddled through Iraq for years before things stabilized somewhat. He has a point. And although he says the question isn't very helpful, he makes an eloquent case for it being directly relevant to the whole question of the U.S. strategy: "If we are truly committed to Afghanistan and believe that it is harder than Iraq, shouldn’t we be committing more resources and manpower to Afghanistan than we did in Iraq?"

But is Bergmann right that Afghanistan isn't "harder?" At a media roundtable I attended as a reporter for CQ, U.S. spy chief Dennis Blair said this: "We know a heck of a lot more about Iraq on a granular level than we know about Afghanistan." He was answering a question from a reporter who relayed a tale -- from not so long ago -- where military forces in Afghanistan relied on maps featuring non-existent villages. Blair said the problem went beyond maps to basic understandings of local power structures.

The United States has been in Afghanistan longer than it has been in Iraq, so the number of years spent muddling is secondary. Afghanistan IS harder, or the considerable gap between American resources spent on Iraq and Afghanistan means the United States has come to figure out Iraq in a way that it hasn't Afghanistan. Or it's both. Whatever the case, as of now, Afghanistan is harder than Iraq.

Recent news reports about a Rand study on counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan focused primarily on Afghanistan. The intelligence failures there, according to the Guardian, "border on the absurd."

Blair said the intelligence community may have a fair assessment of the overall situation in Afghanistan, but when it comes to tactical intelligence used to support operations, the spy agencies have a long way to go. And since according to the new strategy, more troops will be sent, that almost assuredly means more operations. That makes the improvement of tactical intelligence in Afghanistan vital to success there. And that won't be easy.

Obama Reaches Out A Hand; Foreign Leaders Slap It Away

Early returns are that Obama's plan to reach out to nations hostile to America isn't going to be easy.

Venezuela's Chavez calls Obama "ignoramus"

Iran’s Supreme Leader Rebuffs Obama Message

The Bold Iran Paradigm Shift By President Obama That No One (Apparently) Saw

There's no doubt that President Barack Obama's video message to the Iranian government and leadership was a bold move. It's won both considerable praise and heated denouncements.

But my question is this: What impact can it have if nobody saw it?

The AP writes, via Think Progress: "It wasn’t clear how many Iranians were able to see the video, which was not aired on state television in Iran on Friday. It was likely shown on Farsi-language TV stations beamed in from outside of the country, but many Iranians don’t watch television in the first days of long Nowruz holiday that is normally filled with family gatherings or vacations away from home." And seeing it on YouTube isn't a really viable option, either, since the Iranian government blocks the website.

About the only place an Iranian citizen could go to watch it is the White House website.

Iran Options Sought, Iran Options Received

Two weeks ago, I asked what options the U.S. had for dealing with Iran.

Since, Michael has addressed one, and now my CQ colleague Adam Graham-Silverman has addressed some others.

The AGS piece is focused primarily on talks -- in contrast with the tea leaf reading from some that the U.S. was laying the groundwork for abandoning engagement -- but it delves into other options, too, paraphrasing an expert pertinent to all of this, Dennis Ross: "Tighten the noose of sanctions, engage without conditions, or pursue a hybrid option that combines negotiation and pressure." The rest of AGS' exploration is worth reading as well.

Two Links: Obama Doing Well On Foreign Policy

Two analyses on Sunday about the Obama foreign policy:

Fareed Zakaria praises Obama's foreign policy activity thus far, noting changes of direction on Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan.

The Guardian's Jonathan Freeland notes many of the same things, plus Obama activity on Cuba, Israel and others.

Both pieces leave out the missteps of the administration on foreign policy, like the failed appointment of Charles Freeman to the National Intelligence Council or the gaffe with Hillary Clinton and the Russia "reset button." But I think at least one part of their thrust is unquestionably true: It's been a busy early period on foreign policy for an administration that might be expected to focus almost all of its energy on the economy.

Spy Chief Says Economy Is "Primary Near-Term Security Concern" Of The U.S.; But Then What?

In this week's edition of CQ Weekly, I examined the recent statements of Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair that the economic crisis was the "primary near-term security concern" of the United States.

He made the remarks weeks ago, and it got headlines. But no one, it seemed, had asked the next question: OK, what are the ramifications of that?

So I set about asking, and found that some people disagreed with the premise. Many saw a link between the economy and security -- after all, Al Qaeda has long made the connection, with Osama bin Laden pledging a "bleed-until-bankruptcy" strategy in 2004 -- but not to the degree Blair did. What's more, some questioned what good it would do for the intelligence community to involve itself in the question. Almost everyone I called -- some quoted in the piece, some not -- told me, "I'm so glad someone is asking these questions. I don't understand why no one has yet."

If you're not in the United States, the issue may still have ramifications for you, too. So, consider reading the piece, linked above, then if you're an early riser in the U.S., check me out on C-SPAN talking about all of it Monday at 8:30 a.m. EST. Failing that, C-SPAN's website rebroadcasts its programming on its website.

What Chas Freeman's Withdrawal Means

There are a lot of strong opinions out there about what Chas Freeman's withdrawal from the top National Intelligence Council position means.

It could mean the Israel lobby did him in.

It could mean the Saudi lobby isn't as powerful as sometimes thought.

It could mean the Obama administration once again failed to properly vet one of its would-be officials.

It could mean that Freeman was just plain controversial, and on more than Israel.

There's no way to do what I'm about to do without sounding wishy-washy; besides, as a reporter at CQ who covers intelligence, it would be inappropriate for me to go throwing my opinions around about any of this. My role here is more as an analyst.

But ponder the following: What if all of the above is true?

What if the Israel lobby did help do in Freeman, and the Saudi lobby didn't have the ability to offer a powerful counterpoint to complaints that Freeman worked for an organization funded in part by Saudi Arabia? What if it should be controversial when a would-be intelligence official calls the 2008 Tibetan uprisings against China "race riots," and why didn't anyone in the Obama administration take a look at Freeman's associations and statements, realize they were potentially very controversial, then think twice?

Obama's Father And Great Britain

What is with this whole thing where a president allegedly establishes his foreign policy based on what happened to his dad?

Iran Options

Some senior U.S. official really is getting around, talking about what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is telling key Arab leaders about Iran. "It's doubtful that Iran would respond" to engagement, she said, according to that official.

It's all been interpreted as a sign that the U.S. is already moving away from President Obama's campaign idea to meet with Iran.

So what does that leave?

Well, for one, according to the L.A. Times, "it could help persuade U.S. allies to join it in increasing pressure on the Islamic regime," since Clinton said that Iran rebuffing overtures to Iran "would quell complaints that the United States has not exhausted diplomatic routes." Clinton said "that Iran's 'worst nightmare is an international community that is united and an American government willing to engage Iran,' according to the State official."

In particular, Russia and European allies getting on board with additional Iran sanctions they've resisted in the past would be a new step.

The L.A. Times mentioned a few more steps: efforts to solicit Iran to help stabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan, creating a little U.S.-Iran collaboration, as well as new commitments toward U.S. and international disarmament that would persuade Iran to follow that lead.

There does seem to be consensus -- unlike prior to Iraq, when the IAEA and others were skeptical -- that Iran is on the path to a nuclear weapon. Maybe that has created new pressure to move beyond engagement?

Bill Frist As Sudan Envoy Has Some Things Going For It

I've spilled a lot of words in this space about the degree of overlap between Presidents Obama and Bush on national security and foreign policy, and others have started to notice the same thing. But there's a fine line between doing the same thing as one's predecessor and acting in a nonpartisan spirit.

The notion to appoint former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican, as special envoy to Sudan would appear to be the latter. It's only a proposal so far, from Rep. Frank Wolf, an influential member of Congress on human rights. Wolf, though, says the administration likes the idea. Some Democrats may have leftover hard feelings about Frist, but on Darfur, Frist was ahead of the curve.

Any real skepticism about Frist's appointment has more to do with institutional questions: "An effective special envoy generally requires two important features: 1) diplomatic experience 2) access to the president. It strikes me that former Senator Frist possesses neither."

But it might be offset by the signal Frist's appointment would send: America is united on Darfur, left and right.

Foreign Policy + Everything

During the campaign on this blog, I spent a lot of time talking about the way foreign policy linked to lots of other issues. The economy. Global warming. Etc.

As of Obama's State of the Union speech (I know, I know, he didn't call it that), it's clear that the president sees all those issues as interrelated, too.

As Heather Hurlburt noted over at Democracy Arsenal, the blog of the National Security Network: Her final thought, after "having sat through the whole thing, is to point out how we are moving toward a worlcd (sic) where there is no 'foreign policy section' because the issues are woven seamlessly through a framework of issues affecting America, energy security, global warming, and other issues."

All Foreign Cars For Auto Industry Task Force, But Does It Mean Anything?

In a clever bit of populist/hometown reporting, the Detroit News found that most of the members of the president's task force on the auto industry owns foreign cars. Also cleverly, the paper just put the information out there -- no analysis, no experts quoted on whether this was a good or bad thing. Just information. Only the lede hints at a viewpoint, and even then it's carefully couched -- "The vehicles owned by the Obama administration's auto team could reflect one reason why Detroit's Big Three automakers are in trouble: The list includes few new American cars."

That's where everyone else comes in.

Automobile magazine suggests maybe there's something wrong with the team driving foreign cars: "As there seems to be little familiarity with the automotive world on this task force, we hope these guys and gals have some serious business and economic savvy."

Autoblog is less convinced: "Between the flow of bailout bucks and the economic turmoil threatening to topple the Detroit 3, you'd figure the investigative efforts of the Detroit News would be better spent digging through the viability plans of Chrysler and General Motors, delving into the minutia that could make or break the domestic automobile industry. Apparently not."

Obama: "Wolf In Sheep's Clothing" Regarding War, Anti-Terror, Hawkish Rhetoric

The New York Daily News' sharp James Gordon Meek has a piece up expanding on a theme I've returned to here numerous times: That is, whether President Obama is as dovish and different from President Bush on national security as anyone perceived.

Raising points I haven't in previous posts, Meek directs readers' attention to a few items. Hillary Clinton's warnings to North Korea. The hawkish argument for getting out of Iraq to focus more on Afghanistan. That rather than waiting for enemies to "test" him, Obama is putting those enemies on their heels.

It's a typically excellent piece from the NYDN man. Read it here.

On Burma, An Early Test Of Obama Policy, And An Overlooked, Difficult Problem

With President Obama's trip to Canada hogging most of the headlines about U.S. foreign relations, it was only natural that Hillary Clinton's announcement that the United States was looking at a shift on Burma policy didn't get much play in the news.

The country's repressive regime hasn't gotten the kind of attention here that other countries with human rights challenges have, like Sudan. The U.S. has been hitting Burma's junta with economic sanctions, recently strengthened, to no avail.

Now, Clinton won't won't rule out the easing of sanctions or direct diplomacy. It's a somewhat intractable problem, Burma, and it's complicated by the fact that Congress may not be all that interested in undoing its recent strengthening of those sanctions.

The Washington Post this morning editorialized on the subject: "PRESIDENT OBAMA'S inaugural address made the world's tyrants a proposition. 'We will extend a hand,' Mr. Obama said, 'if you are willing to unclench your fist.' It now appears that Burma could be one of the first test cases for this approach."

As the Post notes, there's been no fist unclenching it can detect.

Harmony Between U.S. And Canada On Trade, Or Signs Of Trouble Ahead?

It's very interesting to behold most of the headlines about President Obama's trip to Canada. "Obama reassures Canada on open trade," the way Reuters went, was typical. Usually, the stories include an emphasis up high on the pro-trade message Obama sent: "'Now is a time where we have to be very careful about any signals of protectionism,' Obama told a joint news conference after several hours of talks with [Canadian Prime Minister Stephen] Harper on his one-day visit to Ottawa. 'And as obviously one of the largest economies in the world, it's important for us to make sure that we are showing leadership in the belief that trade ultimately is beneficial to all countries,' he said. He stressed the United States would meet its international trade obligations and told Harper he wanted to 'grow trade not contract it.'"

By contrast, I liked the "but wait" approach taken by The Guardian. Its headline instead reads, "President Barack Obama raises Nafta renegotiation during first official visit to Canada." Obama, the paper wrote, "tried to square a campaign pledge to renegotiate the agreement while at the same time avoid sparking a trade war with Canada. Obama told reporters at the press conference in Ottawa he wanted to begin talks on adding provisions to the agreement relating to workers and to the environment. 'My hope is as our advisers and staffs and economic teams work this through that there's a way of doing this that is not disruptive to the extraordinarily important trade relationship that exists between the two countries,' he said."

This is going to be a very difficult balancing act. On the campaign trail, Obama threatened to pull out of the trade agreement within six months unless it was renegotiated, and he cited a variety of concerns, many of them coming from skepticism that NAFTA had benefited the United States. It's one thing to express opposition on Thursday to "protectionism," but unless Obama is prepared to ditch his campaign pledge, his stance on renegotiating NAFTA will one day soon send exactly the opposite "signals."

Like I Was Saying, Afghanistan Proves Obama And Bush Are Totally Different On Foreign Policy

Yes. So. Yesterday I was raising questions about whether President Bush and President Obama are very different on foreign policy -- or, more correctly, I was pointing you to points raised by others.

Today, a contrasting view must be offered. The 17,000 troops Obama plans to deploy to Afghanistan is a very, very different approach toward that country. Certainly, Bush shifted some troops there several months ago. But this is a far bigger deployment, signaling a big break on one major issue from Bush on foreign policy.

By itself, the move doesn't rebut the point of the points made by Stratfor that I linked to yesterday. There is still, in many categories, "continuity" between Bush and Obama. But as of today, there is one fewer.

Overlap Between Obama, Bush On Foreign Policy, National Security

I wrote a piece for CQPolitics.com about how there are many areas of intelligence policy where President Obama is either much the same as President Bush or has left open the option of doing much the same as his predecessor: rendition, interrogation, surveillance, etc. You can read it here.

But the trend apparently extends to the entire international arena. At least, that's the implication of a Strafor piece you can read here. It argues of Vice President Biden's speech in Munich: "Most conference attendees were looking forward to a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration. What was interesting about Biden’s speech was how little change there has been in the U.S. position and how much the attendees and the media were cheered by it."

Worldwide Threat -- The Testimony

I could write a dozen blog entries on the latest annual "Worldwide Threat" briefing -- there's something in there about a great many countries, and various pieces of it have been broken out about India, Latin America and everywhere else -- or I could just point you to it in case you haven't seen it yet.

It's here.

More On Travel Plans: No Trip To A Muslim Capital In The First 100 Days

Just to follow up on Michael's post, it is not just the lack of travel to Europe by Hillary Clinton that is worth a little examination. It very much appears that President Obama will not, after all, give a policy speech in a Muslim capital in his first 100 days, an idea that the campaign had mulled at one point.

Of course, he did give his first interview to a Middle East news outlet, which perhaps had a similar effect: communicating that Obama would pay close attention to and open a dialogue of sorts with the Muslim world.

And you can't exactly call it a broken campaign pledge, because it was only ever a discussion by aides that was reported by the New York Times.

There's a secondary question of whether Obama will follow through on a proposal to hold a summit with Muslim leaders.

More On The Military/State Division Of Labor

Because I've returned to the subject from time to time, this Walter Pincus piece on the question of shifting responsibilities back from the Pentagon to State is worth reading.

Noteworthy: The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also thinks that foreign policy has become too "militarized."

But having folk in the military world on board so as to avoid turf wars is just step one in the transition. Even in ideal circumstances, and these are not ideal circumstances, it's going to be hard to scale back the Pentagon role in favor of State and other agencies. Funding is another part of the equation, and that won't be easy. Yet another, which I hadn't thought of until reading the piece, is the idea that Defense has a unique culture that makes it easier for it to perform overseas roles.

"Although the problem is recognized, [Adm. Michael] Mullen said, 'We're a good decade away before we've created . . . the capacity and the career paths [for] young people who will come into the Agriculture Department and say, 'Part of my life is, I expect to go to Afghanistan for a year out of every four or five.' . . .That is not what they thought their career path would include at this point.'"

Cybersecurity Increasingly The Hot Intelligence Issue

On Monday, President Obama announced a 60-day review of federal cybersecurity programs. It was but the latest uptick in federal government concentration on protecting computer networks.

Given increasing reliance on those computer networks, it's already unsurprising that there would be an increasing focus on cybersecurity as an intelligence issue. The campaigns of both Barack Obama and John McCain were hacked at one point, and recently news surfaced of breaches in Congress' cyber defenses. Both nominees to Obama administration top administration posts told the Senate that cybersecurity was high on their list of issues, and the last director of National Intelligence said it was one area he wishes he was further along on before stepping down.

The future of what the United States will do on this front is ambiguous, but it's clear that the attention is only going to increase. In fiscal 2009, the top item in the intelligence budget was a cybersecurity initiative, according to the House Intelligence Committee. And Reuters reported: "Industry executives say the sector will be one of their fastest-growing markets in coming years, and analysts say it could generate over $10 billion in contracts by 2013."

Cheney Goes A Little Off Message On Terror War-Rights Debate

Ex-vice president Dick Cheney's interview this week has been discussed nearly to death, but there's a point I haven't seen raised about this quote:

"When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry."

Obviously, Miranda rights don't enter into this, so Cheney is talking generally here about rights vs. security. But Republicans always say that's a false choice, and that the controversial programs of the Bush administration both protected rights and ensured security. So is Cheney now saying that security trumps rights?

It's possible he's resorting to administration legal arguments that terrorists fundamentally don't have rights, and not saying you have to pick between security and the rights of citizens. But it's ambiguous enough that it made me wonder if, outside the message-massaging Bush White House, whether Cheney honestly has always thought you have to sacrifice one to get the other. (That's an argument anyone is welcome to have, but it's a different argument altogether.)

That's the way Obama administration CIA pick Leon Panetta took it, anyway, at the confirmation hearing I attended today: "I was disappointed by those comments, because the implication is that somehow this country is more vulnerable to attack because the president of the United States wants to abide by the law and the Constitution. I think we’re a stronger nation when we abide by the law and the Constitution."

Judd Gregg Gives The Obama Administration Its Biggest Advocate Of Free Trade

Judd Gregg's selection for Commerce secretary closes the loop on a subject I've written about in this space a couple times. The Obama administration has filled some key trade-related positions with people who are on all sides of the trade debate, and I'd wondered whether the president would replace the departed pro-"free trader" Bill Richardson with someone who's more in the "fair trade" camp.

Nope. Obama could hardly have picked a more pro-free trade Commerce secretary. In the past 15 years or so, Gregg has voted against only one major free trade deal. You can check out his entire record here.

Obama-Iran Talks Already Happened (Maybe)

We link, you decide.

AFP: "US President Barack Obama has already used experts within the last few months to hold high-level but discreet talks with both Iran and Syria, organizers of the meetings told AFP."

Mere Rhetoric: "Any meetings that happened between November and the inauguration - that was merely Obama circumventing and potentially undermining a sitting Commander In Chief."

The Cable: "'All the reports that say ‘Obama talks secretly with Iran' are wrong,' Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, the secretary general of Pugwash and the key mover behind the dialogue told The Cable Monday. 'These were not official negotiations. First of all, the dates of all our meetings were in 2008,' when the Bush administration was still in power."

"Buy American" Debate Hits The Stimulus

A "Buy American" provision in the stimulus has provoked a heated debate inside and outside Congress, with even the Obama administration taking two seemingly different stances.

ABC News has the best take on the domestic dispute. The International Herald Tribune has the best take on the international backlash.

It's still early, but with fire coming from a few different directions over this bill, enough opposition to the provision could force its removal, lest it threaten to help sink the overall legislation. There is some divide over this issue domestically, and many past Buy American feuds have ended in a standstill -- although that was in a different economic environment.

Progressives Voice Complaints About Obama Foreign Policy Picks

Yes, it's a trend, at least of perception. No more question marks, like the one that accompanies a recent post. There is at least a significant segment of the left that views the Obama foreign policy team as hawkish, whether it is or not.

That, in fact, is the very premise of this AlterNet piece. The author, Stephen Zunes, views essentially every Obama pick on foreign policy as highly interested in military intervention, and explains why. One way of looking at it, which even Zunes acknowledges, is that Obama establishes his non-ideological approach to things by picking people who lean right (or lean more right than some of the left would like).

Why does this matter, beyond the mere labels of things? Because if enough progressives mount complaints like this, it could have an impact on the shaping of policy. It is at least arguable that pressure from progressives already derailed the prospective nomination of John Brennan as director of the CIA.

And Zunes spells out the strategy: "Another reason that an Obama administration will not likely be as far to the right as these appointments may imply is that his electoral base – energized by popular opposition to the Iraq War – is perhaps the most progressive in history when it comes to foreign policy. It is also the most engaged and organized base the party has ever seen. Once the relief of Bush's departure and the glow of Obama's inauguration has worn off, he will have to face the millions of people responsible for his election who will expect him to keep his word regarding 'change you can believe in'... As a result, what may be most important will not be the people that Obama appoints, but the choices we give them."

Indians Step Up Their Lobbying (And Pakistanis, Too)

Recent weeks have brought an influx in reporting about the lobbying efforts of Indians, all of which is worth checking out.

The Cable kicked things off with its report on the appointment of Richard Holbrooke to a South Asia envoy post. "But the omission of India from his title, and from [Hillary] Clinton's official remarks introducing the new diplomatic push in the region was no accident -- not to mention a sharp departure from Obama's own previously stated approach of engaging India, as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan, in a regional dialogue. Multiple sources told The Cable that India vigorously -- and successfully -- lobbied the Obama transition team to make sure that neither India nor Kashmir was included in Holbrooke's official brief." They followed up on that later here.

Time magazine took a step back and examined the issue as a whole here, and the idea is that India doesn't want the U.S. butting in to Kashmir, and views the limited Holbrooke portfolio as a success in Washington. But the Obama team is saying lobbying had nothing to do with it; they'd always intended to leave India out of his portfolio, but that doesn't mean the administration won't be active on Kashmir.

Meanwhile, Indian-American groups have been getting involved, too, according to my CQ colleague Caitlin Webber, with a coalition of groups hitting the Hill this week to "urge lawmakers to make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on cooperation with investigations of November’s terrorist attack in Mumbai." And a group of Pakistani-Americans have been lobbying against such an idea.

Why's this all happening all at once? Well, what happened in Mumbai has ramifications for the U.S. -- on its domestic counterterrorism policies, on its agenda hunting terrorists on the Afghanistan border, and so forth.

But on a larger level less driven by a single recent news event, one of the people affiliated with the Pakistani-American lobbying effort said: “I think we are all going through a moment of transition. The U.S. is going through its own moment of transition, trying to find its voice, its soul, its destiny, and so is Pakistan and so is India.”

"Climate Change Will Be Increasingly Central To Our Foreign Policy"

That's what new Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry said Wednesday at a hearing where his remarks did not go entirely unnoticed but were overshadowed by the testimony of Al Gore. But it may have deserved to be the headline (and obviously it's what I went with). I already wrote just yesterday that energy/climate change will be one of the top three foreign policy issues of the year, at least on the congressional agenda.

It was a matter of both words and deeds. Wrote Time: "The fact that Kerry chose to make global warming the subject of his first hearing as chairman of the committee signals that in President Barack Obama's Washington at least, Gore's views on the severity of climate change and the need for action are gaining clout — and not just for environmental reasons."

The reason is not immediately obvious to anyone who hasn't thought about it much. But Kerry himself explained: "We are here today for the same reason our top military leaders and intelligence officials have been sounding the alarms. They describe climate change as a threat multiplier and they are warning that the cost of ignoring this issue will be more famine, more drought, more widespread pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity and human displacement on a massive scale."

The Congressional Security And Foreign Policy Agenda

I gave a speech today, as a CQ reporter, on the security agenda for the new Congress. It was an interesting exercise, to step back and look at it as a whole, and to look forward.

What I realized was that there's a lot more there than I expected for a Democratic Congress that will almost surely end up largely supporting a new Democratic president. I don't think there will be the kind of acquiescence to any and all executive branch proposals that marked the immediate post-9/11 environment, nor the kind of outright feuding on fundamental differences over the "how" of battling terrorism that has marked the last couple years. But I do expect there to be border skirmishes over the specifics.

Here's the list as I saw it, assembled with the assistance of some of my colleagues. Space will keep me from elaborating much, but these are topics I'll surely return to in this space repeatedly.

FOREIGN POLICY
--Nuclear proliferation (START treaty, test ban treaty, the UAE)
--Energy (climate change, energy demand)
--"Smart" power (reviving diplomacy, shifting roles from Pentagon to State)

DEFENSE
--Budget (debate over cuts at some point, likely for weapons makers, but supplementals until then)
--Iraq and Afghanistan (reviewing agreements with the Iraqi government, shifting the focus to Afghanistan)
--Veterans (increased care for Iraq ilnesses and lower-priority veterans, DOD/VA health care infrastructure)

INTELLIGENCE
--Interrogation (Guantanamo closure, whether to codify interrogation tactics, examination of past practices)
--Surveillance (court case outcomes, Patriot Act reauthorization)
--Authorization bill (cybersecurity, shape of the intelligence community)

HOMELAND SECURITY
--Chemical plant security (legislation/regulation expiring)
--FEMA as part of the Department of Homeland Security (Janet Napolitano non-committal)
--Department oversight (Authorization bill, attention to border security, interoperatbility, surface transportation)

Guantanamo Bay: The Difference Between Bush And The World Vs. Obama And The World

The European Union tiptoe toward being willing to accept some Guantanamo detainees points to one major difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration: Bush evoked hostility from many traditional U.S. allies, while Obama has something of a clean slate, thanks to not having offended anyone yet and his generally more welcoming attitude toward international cooperation.

Now, some of the groundwork toward countries being willing to accept Gitmo detainees may have indeed been put in place by Bush's team. But even then, the sense was that buddying up to the new administration was the major goal, not doing favors for the outgoing team.

There is no huge cry for Gitmo detainees to be returned to the United States. The stray Democratic congressman says he'd be fine with them being in his district, but several lawmakers, albeit Republicans, have made a big fuss about the idea.

Karl Rove predicts that Gitmo will not be closed in a year. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of whether Obama can deliver on his plan. But if the international community gets on board, it will absolutely be significantly easier.

Obama, Clinton Move To Take Some Diplomacy Responsibilities Back From The Pentagon

This AP analysis article has some interesting insights about the new Obama/Clinton foreign policy, but I was most taken by one section.

"[Clinton} intends to make more use of special diplomatic envoys, in part to move the U.S. away from its recent practice of increasing the power of military commanders to interact with foreign leaders. 'I believe that special envoys, particularly (as compared to) military commands, have a lot to recommend in order to make sure that we've got the civilian presence well represented,' she told senators."

It's not just that Obama and Clinton prefer diplomacy. The Pentagon under Bush increasingly took on roles that were once the exclusive province of the military. And in many ways, they still are doing those things. One wonders what Robert Gates thinks of Clinton's plans, not that conflict between Defense and State would be anything new.

Left And Right See What They Want In The Foreign Policy Section Of Obama's Inaugural Speech

Sticking with reaction to Tuesday's inaugural speech, some interesting ideological types have dissected the foreign policy remarks of President Obama and their relative liberal or conservative qualities.

For the most part, both this Heritage piece and this U.S. News piece get it right. For instance, the Heritage author said that by referring to a "war" on a terror network, Obama seconded Bush (although Obama used "network" as opposed to "terrorism" itself, a slight but important distinction that nonetheless leaves the assessment basically accurate); by addressing foreign leaders to whom the United States will "extend a hand" to those who "unclench your fist," Obama was putting forward an opposite course.

At the same time, there was some hopefulness in the Heritage piece that Obama wouldn't turn too far away from Bush: "...how far world events will allow the Obama foreign policy to diverge from that of the Bush years remains to be seen."

The U.S. News author was correct to take issue with conservatives who somehow saw something new in Obama's desire to "defeat" terrorists, as though Democrats hadn't wanted to do so before: "The national Democrats who don't want to defeat our terrorist enemies only exist in the fevered mirror universe of GOP talking points."

Inauguration Day Foreign Policy Roundup

David Nather tackles President Obama's message to the world.

Caitlin Webber tackles how world leaders reacted to the inauguration.

BBC Monitoring tackles world media reaction.

Obama Clearly Will Hit Foreign Policy On Day One, But His Gaza Agenda Is Foggier

Multiple news reports make abundantly clear that as soon as President-elect Obama officially becomes president, he will hit foreign policy hard, tackling issues such as the Iraq War and Guantanamo.

Where the reports differ is on what Obama will do on the conflict in Gaza, short of naming a Middle East envoy, which has been reported most everywhere.

The Post: "Incoming officials were still debating yesterday how involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis should proceed during the first week. With a fragile Gaza cease-fire in place, the new administration plans to tread gingerly, working behind the scenes while allowing Egyptian and European initiatives to play out before taking a highly visible role."

The Hill: "After weeks of delivering speeches on the nation’s economic crisis, Obama is scheduled to meet with the Joints Chiefs of Staff and other high-ranking military officers on Wednesday and has promised to 'have plenty to say' about the conflict in Gaza after he is sworn in."

I suspect CNN's account reflects the differing sources some of the publications might have: "The Obama aides also revealed the Mideast crisis has shot to the top of the immediate agenda. The aides said Obama has been pushing behind the scenes for quick, decisive action, overriding the advice of some aides who believe getting active instantly may raise unrealistic expectations for Mideast peace."

Trend?: Intervention-Oriented Picks For Obama Team

It's probably too early to call it a trend, but when one blogger on the left notices it and a magazine on the right notices it, it's at least interesting.

DanK at TPM notes a reported Obama hire on Russia who has an intervention-oriented mindset.

The American Conservative notes the same hire, plus another potential pick at the State Department, as being part of the same intervention-oriented strain.

Something to consider.

The Foreign Policy Promises Of Obama

A surprising fact: In a 2008 presidential campaign where foreign policy by all appearances took a backseat to the economy, President-elect Obama made more campaign promises on foreign policy than any other subject.

That's according to Politifact, which compiled all of his promises (510 in all) and segregated them by category (87 on foreign policy). The plan is to follow all of his promises and see which one he fulfills.

You can check out all the foreign policy pledges here, and go ahead and expect "no action" on some of them from now until 2012 or even 2016 -- Vice President-elect Biden said during the campaign that the economic crisis meant that some of the pledges to vastly increase foreign aid probably would go down the drain.

If There Had Been Another Attack, Would Now-Controversial Interrogation Tactics Still Be Controversial?

There's a very deep pool of reporting right now that is looking back at the Bush administration's foreign policy and national security legacy, but I want to drill a little deeper on one specific issue: interrogation and detention policy.

Journalist and author Bob Woodward said the following in a recent roundtable: "If there had been other attacks, large attacks, many attacks, quite frankly -- and this doesn't speak well to the country -- probably these things wouldn't have been an issue, people would have accepted it and the dark side would have been okay."

Woodward's statements came on the same day he reported that a top Bush administration official said a terror case had to be thrown out because a suspect was tortured. And I think that just hints at why Woodward's prediction is somewhat false.

There are a great many reasons that "the dark side" may have ran afoul of the general populace even if there were additional terror attacks.

--It obviously can complicate terror prosecutions, making it harder to jail people who are guilty, and surely a segment of the electorate might have come to question it on those grounds.
--There is a considerable body of study questioning whether some of the tactics the Bush administration has acknowledged using produce good intelligence, since people enduring harsh treatment have been known to lie simply to escape said harsh treatment. Trained interrogators, psychologists and anyone with a pragmatic streak would have eventually spoken out about this no matter the number of attacks, I imagine.
--There would always have been a segment of the population that would have moral objections to the U.S. government embracing "the dark side."
--And, as a foreign policy "realist" argued Tuesday, waterboarding/torture has had, and would continually have had even had their been additional attacks, ramifications for the United States internationally; there is a plausible argument that the revelations of the United States' harsh treatment pushed more people toward becoming terrorists. If the tactics used to fight terrorists create new terrorists, surely at least a segment of the population would have wondered whether the tactics were effective. And that doesn't even factor in to the discussion any of the fallout all of this has led to for the United States' allies, whose help would still hypothetically be handy for fighting terrorists.

I'm not personally arguing for or against any specific interrogation/detention regime. I'm only arguing with the premise of Woodward's statement. I'm guessing that if there had been more terror attacks, it might have taken longer for the Bush administration's methods in the "war on terror" to have come under the kind of scrutiny they're under now. But they would have eventually.

Obama, Congress May Clash Over Merger Of Homeland Security Council With National Security Council

President-elect Obama and congressional Democrats have been a bit out of sync on intelligence issues. First he angered some congressional liberals who opposed a candidate for the CIA director's job, John Brennan, because they feared his views on interrogation and surveillance policies were too closely in line with the Bush administration's. Then, the candidate he did pick, Leon Panetta, drew some fire from a couple senior Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee who were angry they hadn't been informed and had concerns about his thin intelligence resume. Those concerns now appear to have died down.

The next intelligence-related issue on which Congress and Obama may be out of sync is whether to merge the White House Homeland Security Council into the National Security Council. On the surface, it sounds like an easy decision -- why would you need a separate homeland security council when it's as much of a component of national security as anything else that falls under the NSC's purview? But the leaders of the House and Senate committees with oversight of homeland security are skeptical about the idea, because they fear it could lead to homeland security getting thrown onto the backburner. One's a Democrat and the other's an independent, and both say they're "open" to the merger, with some caveats. The top Republican on the Senate panel has similar concerns. Read more in my CQ story here (although you won't find the House chairman's point of view in that story, expressed to me but not published in the piece).

Obama's First Foreign Trip: Canada

President-elect Barack Obama is going the opposite route of President Bush right away on one early foreign policy decision: A visit to Canada.

Bush, you see, went to Mexico as his first foreign policy trip, breaking a rather long tradition of new presidents visiting Canada first, one that Obama plans to restore, according to both the Obama team and Canadian officials.

As you might expect, they're happy about this in Canada, where it's something of a symbolic victory about the importance of their country. But that doesn't mean Obama won't have some contentious business to attend to once there.

Per the Vancouver Sun: "The meeting between [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper and Obama is certain to focus heavily on several key topics — the war in Afghanistan, climate change and the impact the global recession is having on the North American auto industry and Canada-U.S. bilateral trade."

"One President At A Time" On Foreign Front, But Not On Economic Stimulus

On Gaza and other foreign matters, President-elect Barack Obama's team has repeatedly refused to weigh in on the principle that there is only "one president at a time." But on the economic front, Obama has stepped over that line.

It's hard to reconcile the two, just using one's brain. The closest Obama has come to explaining the difference is to say on Monday, per Politico, “I will continue to insist that, when it comes to foreign affairs, it is particularly important to emphasize that there is one president at a time... There are delicate negotiations taking place right now and we can't have two voices coming out of the United States when you have so much at stake.”

I suppose it's defensible, then, if President Bush isn't proposing his own economic plan, therefore meaning there isn't any interference in negotiations. Because is there really any reason there should be just one face representing the executive branch abroad as opposed to with Congress?

Much Ado About Nothing In Kashmir Over Obama's "First Big Foreign Policy Mistake"

Were you aware that Barack Obama had made his "first big foreign policy mistake?" And that it was a statement about Kashmir? The press in India and Pakistan is going bonkers about it, but it's not getting much ink in the United States.

Perhaps that's because the statement was made months ago, on the campaign trail -- which would make it difficult to qualify as Obama's "first big foreign policy mistake," since it was made before he was even elected, let alone inaugurated. Obviously, Obama's stance on Kashmir has its detractors, as you might have read back in November, when the remarks were first published. But if this warrants big headlines, now, in India and Pakistan, clearly there's a great hunger for any shred of U.S.-related news in that region of the world, because this one's a big reach.

Nonetheless, if you want to get caught up on this tempest in a teapot, you can read the Washington Times piece that started it all here. (And by the way, if the author of the piece was somehow alleging this was the "first big foreign policy mistake" Obama has ever made, in his whole life, or as a candidate for president, I'm sure Obama's critics and even his allies could find bigger so-called "mistake[s].")

A Foreign Policy Treasure Trove

From the Department of Stupidly Promoting Others comes this recommendation that you check out all the major, major new features over at Foreign Policy magazine's website, which has added like a gazillion foreign policy blogs, all of which show promise.

But if you're anything like me, you won't stop reading the (hopefully) good work we do here at Across the Pond, because this is an opportunity to supplement, not replace, with yet more good foreign policy analysis.

They hit foreign policy from every angle at each of the new blogs, and I won't link to every single one of them today; there are nine in all, and I recommend exploring. But I can tell you I'm personally looking forward to regularly visiting The Cable, written by the excellent foreign policy/national security writer Laura Rozen; The Best Defense, penned by Tom Ricks, the Washington Post defense writer who does great work; and Madam Secretary, which promises to "obsessive" about Hillary Clinton. There are some other heavyweights that just got hired -- go check it out.

And if this doesn't sound enough like a press release, here's the actual press release.

Richardson's Step Down Raises Questions About Replacement's View On Trade

On Sunday, Bill Richardson withdrew as President-elect Obama's choice to head up the Commerce Department, removing a voice from his cabinet who represents a more pro-free trade position.

Considering that Obama's pick for U.S. trade representative, Rep. Xavier Becerra, is seen as more skeptical of free trade (or, rather, more in favor of fair trade -- the dispute over wording here makes writing about this difficult), Richardson's departure leaves Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's pick for White House chief of staff, as the biggest counterbalance representing that stance. One wonders if Obama's team will replace Richardson with someone who reflects Richardson's point of view on trade.

Confirmation Hearing Watch

If you're interested in following the Senate's march of nominees for hearings and confirmations, two locations of note:

1. This New York Times piece that lays out the current schedule.
2. This CQPolitics.com blog that posts new hearing dates as they happen.

Few of the nominees of interest to this blog -- i.e., those with foreign relations roles -- or much of any of the nominees, in fact, are expected to encounter any real resistance from Democrats who control Congress.

But it's an opportunity to stop relying on speculation and get from the horse's mouth the incoming administration's views on Afghanistan and the like. Per the times: "The confirmation calendar, at this juncture, promises to be manna for policy wonks as everyone gets a glimpse of the incoming administration’s plans and its collective (or not so) thinking."

An Answer To The Guantanamo Bay Dilemma?

This doesn't appear to have gotten much attention in either the news or blogging world, coming as it did on Christmas day and making its way ashore over the weekend:

From The Australian -- "The US State Department confirmed that, over the past 12 months, it had cabled more than 100 countries seeking help to clear out Guantanamo Bay. The incoming administration of Barack Obama is expecting help with resettling more than 250 detainees still at Guantanamo Bay, some still considered dangerous but many regarded as not being a threat."

From Bloomberg -- "Australia may accept detainees from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, subject to legal criteria and their individual cases... Australia joined Germany and Portugal in voicing a willingness to take some Guantanamo detainees."

The Australian examined some of the pros and cons of it from Australia's point of view -- pro: curry favor with Washington at a crucial turning point; con: bringing even alleged terrorists to one's country can't be that popular -- but I've not seen much else. Are there downsides for the U.S., though? (h/t Think Progress)

Obama In A Holding Pattern On Renewed Middle East Hostilities

Two Timeses, one in London and the other in New York, have taken looks at what the increased Middle East hostilities will mean for the incoming Obama administration, and they come up somewhat empty.

That's because Obama is insisting on maintaining his position about there only being one president at a time who should speak for the United States. And really, it's not as if either paper suggests he even has any alternative.

The best quote in either story comes from Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center: "What this does is present the incoming administration with the urgency of a crisis without the capacity to do much about it."

That leaves both papers searching, as the Times of London says is happening in the Middle East right now, trying "to decipher the candidates' often conflicting policy statements for clues as to how the new administration intends to proceed," referring to both Obama and his Secretary of State nominee, Hillary Clinton.

It was worth a try, but fairly fruitless. I've written before about the value of such exercises in the past; this time, little gets accomplished.

Merry Christmas, Barack Obama: Intel Officials Say Terrorists Plan WMD Attacks

In a rather unpleasant Christmas gift for the incoming president, yet another expert analysis has warned of the threat of weapons of mass destruction attacks, per the AP's Eileen Sullivan.

The report by the Department of Homeland Security details a variety of threats over the next five years, which roughly coincide with the first Obama administration. But the threat of WMD attacks stands out. They would do the most damage, and some have theorized that the reason the U.S. hasn't been attacked in the homeland since Sept. 11 is because they don't want to bother with anything that doesn't eclipse the 2001 assault.

Lest it seem like the kind of persistent warning that some view as hype, the report does note that WMD attacks would be very difficult to carry out. But between this report and that of the recent WMD commission, it's exceedingly clear that expert Washington opinion points to the need for the Obama administration to focus heavily on WMDs.

Hillary Clinton Plans To Strengthen State Department's Role In The Economy, But How Is Less Clear

The New York Times has a fairly meaty piece about Hillary Clinton's intention to beef up (no pun intended; OK, pun intended) the State Department.

Among the highlights: She wants to strengthen the State Department's portfolio on economic issues; she could name special envoys to places like Iran and India; and she has given one official the role of pushing for more money for diplomats.

The latter two are fairly straightforward. Although the piece said the push for an expanded State Department could bring Clinton into conflict with other administration officials, it simultaneously says that Pentagon chief Robert Gates and incoming national security adviser James Jones are on board with giving more resources to State. That fits with the incoming administration's greater emphasis on diplomacy.

What the piece leaves out is whether the administration's economic team backs Clinton's ideas. And it's not especially clear what the State Department would do that was different from what it does now, like whether State would steal some jurisdiction from Treasury or perform new roles altogether. Those kind of unanswered questions aren't uncommon for a piece delving into discussions about decisions that aren't final, but they will be worth watching to see how they get resolved.

Dennis Blair, Obama's Pick For Spy Chief, Also Comes With Questions

Seizing on a theme Michael explored here recently: The latest addition to President-elect Obama's national security team is said to be Dennis Blair for director of National Intelligence, and he, too, has endured a little criticism as the pick.

Bob Baer writes that the pick is "not quite inspired" in Time magazine: "The downsides to Blair's appointment are that there's little chance he'll lead the much-needed charge to streamline the intelligence community." And, Baer writes, his emphasis on tactical intelligence rather than strategic intelligence means that the spy agencies may be spending more time on soil samples than who has weapons of mass destruction.

Jeff Stein writes of some other problems for Blair; he made "controversial judgments" on North Korea's nuclear program, "dismissed the threat of Somali pirates to oil lanes" and came under scrutiny from the Pentagon's inspector general for alleged conflicts of interest.

And some human rights groups are upset at him because "during his term as Pacific commander, Blair was accused of going easy on Indonesian military officers accused of atrocities during a bloody conflict over East Timor, a former Portuguese colony seized by Indonesia in 1975 which became independent in 2002."

This list of gripes doesn't necessarily suggest Blair is a bad pick; some in Congress, such as Sens. Daniel Akaka and Jack Reed, have hailed him for his thoughtfulness, and NBC's Norah O'Donnell called him a "brainiac," per Stein. My sense is that he's a fairly well-respected figure in the national security community. But pointing out the knocks on him here serves as an addendum to the questions raised in Michael's piece about the other members of Obama's national security team.

Merely By Winning An Election, Obama's Foreign Policy Views Prove More Popular

Here's an interesting result of Barack Obama's election win: For no apparent reason other than that he emerged victorious, the public has more deeply embraced his foreign policy views.

Two months before the election, John McCain was the significantly more trusted of the two candidates on Iraq. The war was unpopular, but there was less clamoring for the kind of pull out that Obama recommended -- and that was a pretty consistent poll result throughout the entire campaign. Generally, McCain polled better on foreign policy than did Obama.

Now? Fully 70% of those polled support Obama's plan. And with things about the same in Iraq as they were a couple months ago, it's hard to see why they would other than that the country is uniting behind its president-elect -- whether it's because America has always loved winners or because of the historic nature of Obama's campaign and his personal qualities. The shift may be related to growing optimism about the Iraq War, but that doesn't explain why other Obama foreign policy stances appear to have broad support they didn't before. It all adds up, per Talking Points Memo, to a "mandate." (At least, for now.)

Reports, Reports And More Foreign Policy-Related Reports For Obama, This Time On Genocide And Health

The foreign policy and national security reports from special task forces, commissions and institutes continue to pile up on President-elect Barack Obama's desk, all with recommendations for his incoming administration. They include the work of the Project on National Security Reform and the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. Two others are of more recent vintage.

On Monday, the U.S. Institute of Medicine issued a report calling on Obama to double health aid to poor countries, among other recommendations. Last week, a somewhat little-noticed report from a special task force on genocide also recommended that Obama increase funding -- this time to handle crises, among other, more prominent suggestions. (I say "somewhat little-noticed" because it took until Monday for the New York Times to give it some editorial attention.)

The trouble with any recommendations involving foreign policy funding is that while no one in the Obama camp has said foreign aid funding will decrease as a result of the economic crisis, they have signaled that they will scale back their original foreign aid ambitions. Another risk is that the reports, which should be taken seriously because they come from esteemed foreign policy hands or well-regarded specialists, could get lost in the shuffle of a transition where everyone wants something from the incoming administration.

Framing Free Trade For President-Elect Obama

My CQ colleague Joseph J. Schatz gives considerable attention here to the dynamic of the free trade debate as President-elect Obama prepares to take office. There are a lot of moving pieces: the recession, skepticism about the value of free trade, Obama's own complex views on trade. He also touches on the subject of Rep. Xavier Becerra's potential appointment as the U.S. trade representative, a subject I addressed here.

A passage that sums up the piece, which I recommend to anyone who cares about the next four to eight years of free trade policy in the United States:

"Proponents of unfettered trade find themselves walking a fine line, extolling the economic benefits of trade while also being careful to acknowledge its costs to workers. Free-trade skeptics are finding narrower distinctions, too, accepting the reality of globalization — and distinguishing free trade and fair trade, for example — while pursuing their cause of protecting U.S. jobs.

This is the environment that President-elect Barack Obama, a professed internationalist, will confront as he develops a trade policy that defines the role the United States will play in an increasingly global economy.

Obama sent conflicting signals on trade during the presidential campaign and his transition to the White House, and that conflict is reflected in his incoming Cabinet as well. The man he is expected to name as the U.S. trade representative, Xavier Becerra has said he regrets voting for NAFTA as a member of the House in 1993; Obama’s incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was instrumental as President Bill Clinton’s chief lobbyist in getting it passed."

Should Becerra Accept Trade Representative Job, He Would Not Fit Into The Obama Pick Pattern

Overshadowed somewhat by President-elect Obama's picks for his national security team is the offer Obama reportedly made to Rep. Xavier Becerra to serve as U.S. Trade Representative.

On the global front, as some (including myself) have written, Obama has largely picked nominees who you could easily classify as "moderate." On the issue Becerra would be in charge of, he doesn't exactly fit into that mold. Although the Democratic party has shifted away from the ill-at-ease pro-free trade days of President Clinton, the more "moderate" position on free trade largely remains embracing free trade as much as possible.

Becerra reflects the majority of Democratic voters now rather than the political center on trade. He voted for NAFTA, but has since said he regrets it. He led the opposition against CAFTA three years ago. Of course, it is not accurate to say that Democrats who are saddled with the label of opposing free trade oppose it altogether; they oppose it without strict environmental and labor standards.

But Becerra is seen as a pick who would be more skeptical of free trade than past presidents. "Getting a U.S. Trade Representative who is on record against the NAFTA trade model and with votes against CAFTA and Oman is a huge change from both the Bush administration and the Clinton administration," wrote David Sirota. "The selection suggests Obama is serious about reforming our trade policies, and it should be applauded."

Obama And Biden Have Returned A Lot Of Congratulatory Calls From World Leaders, Huh?

Once a week or so since the election, the transition team of President-elect Obama has sent out e-mails about which congratulatory calls from world leaders Obama or Vice president-elect Biden have returned. About one month since Obama-Biden won, here's whom they've chatted up according to those e-mails, in reverse chronological order. So far, there have been no reports of any of them hanging up on him:

Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen
Dutch Prime Minister Balkenende
Greek Prime Minister Karamanlis
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
Kuwaiti Amir Sheikh Al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah
Qatari Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Indonesian President Yudhoyono
Afghanistan President Karzai
European Commission President Barroso
Haitian President Preval
Colombian President Uribe
Nigerian President Yar’Adua
Senegalese President Wade
South African President Motlanthe
United Nations Secretary General Ban
President Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina
President Bachelet of Chile
Taoiseach Cowen of Ireland
President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan
President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority
President Saakashvili of Georgia
President Macapagal-Arroyo of the Philippines
President Gul of Turkey
Colombian President Álvaro Uribe
European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili
Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis
Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero
King Abdullah of Jordan
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
Israeli Likud Leader Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu
Polish President Lech Kaczynski
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Afghan President Hamid Karzai
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India
His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan
President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya

--Maybe I just didn't get the news release, but this AP story by Nedra Pickler from Nov. 7 says that Obama spoke to a number of foreign leaders on the Thursday after the election. "Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the president-elect spoke to Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso, Mexican President Felipe Calderon, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown." So there's a chance he's spoken to more leaders than they have officially announced, at least via news release that I've seen.

--Where there's duplication, it's when both men called said foreign leader. Not included: The G-20 meetings of Obama representatives former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Republican Congressman Jim Leach.

Tim Roemer, Dennis Blair Speak On The DNI Job; Two Reports Recommend Overhauls Of U.S. Foreign Policy/National Security

On Wednesday, two organizations -- the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism and the Project on National Security Reform -- rolled out major recommendations for the incoming president and Congress to overhaul a great deal about the way the United States does foreign policy and national security. You can read my coverage of them here and here, so I’ll spare you an enumeration of everything they said, but the two organizations recommend everything from increasing non-military aid to Pakistan to expanding the Foreign Service.

At separate press conferences to release the reports, in my capacity as a reporter for Congressional Quarterly, I spoke to two people who helped assemble them and also happen to be two prominently “mentioned” candidates for director of National Intelligence. Neither spilled the beans, in keeping with tradition in these circumstances, but I pass their answers along nonetheless:

Dennis C. Blair -- “It’s all in the rumor stage right now. Let’s just leave it there.”

Tim Roemer, when I asked him if he was being vetted for a job with President-elect Barack Obama -- “Could be. Could be. No comment at this point, but we’ll see.”

Republicans Not Sure How To React To Obama National Security Team Picks

With Republicans soon to be completely out of power once Barack Obama becomes president, their views on the roll out of Obama's foreign policy team got fairly short shrift in media coverage today. There's another reason for that fairly short shrift: There was no consistent reaction from conservatives to distill into its essence. They seemed torn between a desire to give Obama the benefit of the doubt publicly; genuinely pleased by the number of moderates he picked; interested in the strategic aspects of the picks; focused on finding fault with the nominees; or more intrigued by different, but related, subjects.

Rush Limbaugh called the selection of Hillary Clinton a "brilliant stroke;" Rep. Lamar Smith went after Janet Napolitano for her "weak" record on immigration. These are not the Republicans who led in Washington for years in part because they united as one voice -- which may have led to their downfall when President Bush dropped in popularity, leaving them seemingly unsure of how to react to their new standing. Reporters with space constraints can't be blamed for not knowing which Republican remarks to pick; but this being a blog, click on the links throughout the entry for some of the conservative reaction.

"Likely To Be Tested Soon" Vs. Easy Start For Obama On The International Front

It's always fascinating to see the analysis coming to completely opposition conclusions on the same subject. At the San Francisco Chronicle, the headline is "Obama likely to face foreign policy tests soon." At the Atlantic, Robert Kaplan expects "success" early, with enemies that have little motive or means to test the new president.

As you might expect, there's a little from column A, a little from column B that's true. For instance, Kaplan is right that Obama is inheriting an Iraq where conditions have improved and look favorable. But the Chronicle piece, by Zachary Coile, notes that "calls for a speedy redeployment could be tested if violence flares next year around regional and national elections." Both are accurate. Whatever conclusion you find most convincing, both pieces are worth reading to get a sense of the best- and worst-case scenarios Obama could encounter... soon.

Latest Intel: Clinton, Gates, Jones To Be Selected For Obama International Affairs Team, Mixed Reports On Other Nominations

A day and a half removed from President-elect Obama's announcement on some key foreign policy advisers, news reports have consolidated on accounts that: A. Hillary Clinton will take Secretary of State; B. Robert Gates will take Secretary of Defense; and C. James Jones will take national security adviser. Secondarily, the best intel suggests that Obama will nominate Janet Napolitano to run the Department of Homeland Security; Eric Holder, attorney general; Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence; and Susan Rice, ambassador to the United Nations. And even further down the organization chart, James Steinberg and Tom Donilon would serve as Clinton's and Jones' deputies, respectively.

Among the top national security/foreign affairs posts for which Obama will not name anyone just yet, you'd have to put head of the CIA and head of the Department of Veterans Affairs at the top of the list.

(Perhaps the most interesting story about the Clinton nomination, via the New York Daily News' excellent Ken Bazinet, is that she apparently passed up the chance to be Appropriations chair, which is about as powerful as you get in the Senate.)

Obama Might Go Celebrity After All: Foreign Policy Advisers To The Stars Could Join His Team

As I've said before, we're afforded very little room for light-hearted moments at Across the Pond, so I take them when I can get them. The current opportunity is afforded by the fact that the foreign policy advisers to George Clooney and Angelina Jolie are contemplating joining the Obama administration.

The L.A. Times has the details here. Men like John Prendergast, who's enlisted Jolie and others to visit Darfur, are said to be interested in signing up with Obama, although there's no word on whether the feeling is mutual. But if it happens, there could be a little more synergy between Hollywood and D.C., sometimes called "Hollywood for ugly people." (In fact, it looks the quote is most often attributed to old Obama rival John McCain.)

If it happens, this might come across as a superficial move by Obama -- but the two men featured by the Times had serious international affairs bona fides before they enlisted with Clooney, Jolie and company.

Obama And Clinton May Have Set Aside Their Foreign Policy Differences, But What Will Some Other Leaders Think Of Clinton?

Joshua Keating at Passport makes a very relevant point about another potential hitch with President-elect Obama selecting Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State: Not only do Obama and Clinton have their differences to work out, but Clinton would have some differences to work out with some foreign leaders.

Clinton once said Russia's Vladimir Putin "doesn't have a soul," and had suggested the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran. Those are two of the countries with which Obama will inherit the most difficult U.S. relations, and dealing with countries like that was central to Obama's foreign policy message.

Keating writes: "Obama and Clinton have shown they're willing to put the bitter Democratic primary behind them. Will the rest of the world?"

Brennan Out, Gates In

What I was trying to get at here was that what President-elect Obama was putting together on his foreign policy team was something LIKE his oft-spoken "team of rivals," but not exactly. What he is putting together is something more like a "team of moderates," and Tuesday there were indicators that he was moving more in that direction still.

John Brennan removed himself from consideration of an intelligence post in the Obama administration. Brennan would have been the most Republican person in Obama's foreign policy line-up; he's been identified in news accounts as a "a lifelong Republican" who converted to Obama. But what about Robert Gates, you say? Gates, like Brennan, has served in the Bush administration, and there was word that he was the pick to stay on at the Defense Department for a while. Where Gates and Brennan are different is that Gates apparently has never been a Republican. But he's assuredly a moderate, like some of the other choices.

Next week, the rest of the Obama foreign policy team is up.

On Foreign Policy, Something Like A "Team Of Rivals" For Obama

Hillary Clinton and James Jones appear on track for key foreign policy/national security posts, Robert Gates might remain from the Bush administration and John Brennan may be next up on the nomination list. There's a trend here:

"..the emerging national security team appears to be centrist in orientation, with deep experience in many of the areas likely to be the focus of Obama's foreign policy -- including wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and instability in Pakistan and the Middle East, where Obama advisers have been signaling a desire to make an early mark in the stalled peace process."

A Primer On The Global Aspects Of The Financial Crisis For Obama, Congress

The Congressional Research Service issues well-regarded reports to lawmakers that are never officially released to the public but that frequently leak more widely. Secrecy News is one of the organizations that specialized in scooping them up.

If President-elect Obama and Congress want a primer on all the options they have for handling the global aspects of the financial crisis, they could hardly do better than the CRS did in a report you can read here.

Al Qaeda Universally Thought To Have Made A Grave Misstep In Calling Obama "House Negro"

One of the arguments in favor of a President Obama -- not one that he predominately made -- was that, strictly by virtue of his skin color, he would immediately have an impact on the United States' reputation abroad. And he has proven very popular in many lands, particularly Africa, where people on the continent see a man who looks like them. But his skin color may now have tripped up Al Qaeda in a way that could be very damaging to the terrorist group.

In a new video, Al Qaeda #2 man Ayman al-Zawahiri referred to Obama as a "house Negro." The Counterterrorism Blog's Evan Kohlmann explains why Zawahiri did this: "Clearly, Al-Qaida is seeking to undermine the surge of popularity and enthusiasm for the Obama victory that has spread throughout the developing world, and particularly in Africa -- where Al-Qaida has strong vested interests in at least two ongoing military conflicts." But here's where the backfiring part comes in: "By playing the race card so quickly and so brazenly, al-Zawahiri may end up causing backlash against Al-Qaida in the very constituencies he is seeking to woo."

Over at Wired's Danger Room, Noah Schatchman notes the pettiness of it all: "Al Qaeda used to be the kings of propaganda, outmaneuvering the American media machine at every turn. Now, it's clear the terror group's information operators have stumbled, big time... That's right. The guys who used to kill people, just to get their death on tape, have been reduced to name-calling."

It is such a potentially monumental misstep that some folk -- starting with Spencer Ackerman -- are wondering why the State Department isn't making serious hay out of Zawahiri's remarks. "That sort of disruption is precisely what the U.S. needs to rapidly exploit," Ackerman wrote. "In both policy and public-diplomacy terms, the clay is still wet."

The Value Of Looking Ahead For Obama

The top-ranking intelligence analyst in the country gave a speech I attended today about the future of the Middle East. He identified a great number of factors that would contribute to that future, circa 2025: a “youth bulge;” the consequent need for more education; a slow shift away from oil as an energy source that would affect the region's economy; scarce resources; the possibility of Al Qaeda fading and other terror groups that may be more dangerous emerging in their place; whether autocratic governments can meet the needs of an increasingly demanding populace; and the prospects of a nuclear Iran.

The official, Thomas Fingar, said the Middle East is likely to be “at the center of an arc of instability.” But he also cautioned that the projections he made – which are from a forthcoming report – could be way, way off. Projections that far out, for decades upon decades, have been “universally wrong. They missed everything that was important.”

That said, I believe the below passage is the most important part of all this:

“The timing of these reports is deliberate, that we’d like to get it to members of a new administration for a last time around, a reelected, replenishing itself administration. New officials coming in with agendas, with expectations, to catch them in that window before they are consumed by the inbox and the press of day-to-day events. To think a little more about the world outside of their portfolio, the way in which events that are in a job jar of other officials might affect them, to link up their own aspirations and policies and concerns to those of others to begin to think about potential allies to be able to anticipate foreign reactions to it.”

Everyone in the intelligence world who thinks about the subject deeply makes this point all the time: One can’t get too caught up in the day-to-day crises and take an eye off the distant future. And if it sounds crazy to suggest a president who’s coming into an economic crisis and two wars ought to be thinking about 2025 at all, well, just consider that two presidential candidates spent the entire campaign saying that the United States should have been thinking about putting together a real energy plan years and years ago. And then consider how much different the world might be now if that had happened – on terrorism and gas prices, and how related those two things are to the United States’ Middle East policy, and on the dual wars the United States is waging for some combination of all that and then how those things are in and of themselves related to the current economic crisis.

The Complicated Parts Of Selecting Hillary Clinton For Secretary Of State

There’s much to be said for President-elect Obama selecting Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. But I do think the positives have to be weighed against the potential negatives.

Newsday’s headline says “Clinton, Obama’s foreign policy views not so different.” Insofar as both are Democrats and have more in common with one another than they did McCain, that’s true. But during the primary, they were less alike on foreign policy than on any other issue. Obama’s main case against Clinton during the primary was that she voted for the Iraq War he opposed. Clinton’s main case against Obama during the primary was that he was too green to handle a foreign crisis, and that McCain would be a better president than him because of it. Obama got over the Iraq War vote issue when it came to selecting Joe Biden as his running mate, and Clinton saw fit to campaign for Obama, so that’s not insurmountable.

But that’s not their only policy difference. Obama and Clinton disagreed intensely over the terms of meeting with the foreign leaders of enemy countries. Assuredly, Obama watered down his “meet without preconditions” position as the campaign wore on, but if he wanted Clinton to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would she do it?

Additionally, there are structural issues here. With the Clintons, you never get just one. As the Washington Post wrote: “Bill Clinton's web of personal financial ties and public policy pronouncements about the world's challenges would instantly become a source of possible discord with a new Obama administration as his wife travels the same world circuit as America's official emissary.” And how would she and Biden divide foreign policy roles between themselves? Between the Clintons, Biden and Obama himself, we’re talking about more than one of what Henry Kissinger refers to as a “strong personality.”

It’s all very complicated.

CORRECTED: To accurately reflect Clinton's position on the Iraq War. Thanks to the reader who caught the mistake, purely of the mental variety.

Finally, Someone Explains How The Economic Situation Weighs On U.S.-International Relations

This is the connection between the economic crisis and U.S. foreign policy I kept waiting for someone to make explicit during the campaign.

From the Washington Post:

"Intelligence officials are warning that the deepening global financial crisis could weaken fragile governments in the world's most dangerous areas and undermine the ability of the United States and its allies to respond to a new wave of security threats.

U.S. government officials and private analysts say the economic turmoil has heightened the short-term risk of a terrorist attack, as radical groups probe for weakening border protections and new gaps in defenses. A protracted financial crisis could threaten the survival of friendly regimes from Pakistan to the Middle East while forcing Western nations to cut spending on defense, intelligence and foreign aid, the sources said.

The crisis could also accelerate the shift to a more Asia-centric globe, as rising powers such as China gain more leverage over international financial institutions and greater influence in world capitals."

Read the rest here.

What Standard Would Govern The Obama Administration's Policies On Interrogations Of Detainees?

There's been some pressure building -- from Congress, from religious groups and others -- for President-elect Obama to implement executive orders that would eliminate all harsh interrogation tactics. On the surface, the fact that Obama said on the campaign trail that he opposes torture would seem to suggest he would. But things sometimes change on the path from the campaign trail to the White House, especially when those things aren't as simple as they might first appear.

I've compiled some statements over time from the Obama camp, including a top campaign adviser, John Brennan, whom some believe could end up in a prominent intelligence slot in the Obama administration. I also included a comment from an outside critic. The language on all of this is rather tricky. Different people hold different definitions about what kind of interrogation practices constitute "torture;" they range from the Geneva Conventions to one early Bush administration legal memo which stated that only "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" would constitute torture punishable by law. One proposal has been for all agencies to use an Army field manual currently governing Pentagon interrogators that would ban practices that include waterboarding, a kind of simulated drowning, in addition to other controversial tactics. You be the judge.

--Brennan before he joined up with the Obama campaign, CBS News transcript, Nov. 2, 2007:

“I think [waterboarding] is, certainly, subjecting an individual to severe pain and suffer, which is the classic definition of torture. And I believe, quite frankly, it's inconsistent with American values and it's something that should be prohibited."

“There has been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has, in fact, used against the real hardcore terrorists. It has saved lives. And let's not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the death of 3,000 innocents.”

--NPR, July 7, 2008:

“Obama campaign spokesmen say he still thinks CIA interrogators should abide by the Army Field Manual, but he missed the last Senate vote on the issue.”

--Brennan on Obama, CQPolitics.com, Aug. 29, 2008:

“'He [believes] torture not be allowed in any form or fashion in any part of the federal government, and he would make sure that was the case,’ Brennan said. ‘Whether the Army field manual is comprehensive enough to cover all those tactics and techniques, that’s something I think he’d look to his national security advisers for.’”

--Brennan, Washington Times, Oct. 23, 2008:
“All intelligence activities under an Obama administration would be ‘consistent with U.S. law,’ he added. CIA waterboarding or other questionable practices are ‘not going to be allowed under an Obama presidency,’ Mr. Brennan said.”

--Citing “one current government official familiar with the transition,” Wall Street Journal, Nov. 11, 2008:

“Upon review, Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.”

--Former intelligence analyst Melvin Goodman opinion piece in the Baltimore Sun, Nov. 14, 2008:

“Mr. Brennan, as chief of staff and deputy executive director under Mr. [George] Tenet, was involved in decisions to conduct torture and abuse of suspected terrorists and to render suspected individuals to foreign intelligence services that conducted their own torture and abuse.”

And then there's the whole question of whether Obama would establish a "torture commission."

Yemen And Algeria Are Two More Countries For Obama To Worry About

The apparently outgoing CIA director Michael Hayden on Thursday offered yet more countries to add to Barack Obama’s “worry” list.

In a speech on Al Qaeda, Hayden didn’t direct his remarks at Obama per se. But he was talking about emerging threats, and by definition that puts them on Obama’s watch. Aside from the immediate threats of Al Qaeda in Pakistan, Hayden said there has been an unusual side effect to victories over Al Qaeda in Iraq and Saudi Arabia: The terrorist group is spilling into other countries.

His remarks on the subject, as prepared for delivery:

“…Remember, point number one was that al-Qa’ida is a determined, adaptive enemy. In face of setbacks, the senior leadership recalibrates. It constantly looks for ways to make up for losses, extend its reach, and take advantage of opportunities. We are seeing this clearly today in places like North Africa, Somalia, and Yemen.

The presence of extremist sympathizers, the availability of weapons and ungoverned space, and the lack of effective security make these areas attractive locations for al-Qa’ida recruitment and training, as well as attacks. In addition, North Africa provides an easy transit point for those destined to facilitate or carry out attacks in Europe.

The level of focus and activity we’re seeing in these areas is troubling. In fact, recent attacks and threats from [Algerian jihadist group] Al-Qa’ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb are greater in scope and severity than any since the group merged with al-Qa’ida two years ago. The suicide attacks against an Algerian military barracks and nearby café in June, along with several recent attacks on French tourists and workers, underscore not only the group’s intent to strike Western targets, but its ability to plot and operate even under tightened security in Algeria.

In East Africa, al-Qa’ida is engaging Somali extremists to revitalize operations. While there has been no official merger, the leader of the al-Shabaab terrorist group is closely tied to al-Qa’ida. And the recent bombings in Somalia may have been meant, at least in part, to strengthen bona fides with al-Qa’ida’s senior leaders. A merger between al-Shabaab and al-Qa’ida could give Somali extremists much-needed funding, while al-Qa’ida could claim to be reestablishing its operations base in East Africa, a base that was severely disrupted two years ago when Ethiopia invaded Somalia.

Yemen is another country of concern — a place where al-Qa’ida is strengthening. We have seen an unprecedented number of attacks in 2008, including two on the American embassy. Plots are increasing not only in number, but in sophistication, and the range of targets is broadening. Al-Qa’ida cells are operating from remote tribal areas where the government has little authority, and they are being led or reinforced by veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I mentioned earlier that the threat to Saudi Arabia was probably more external than internal. These developments in Yemen are a primary reason.

North and East Africa and Yemen serve as a kind of counterweight to the good news out of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. Make no mistake; these are not problems on the same scale as Iraq or Saudi Arabia, but al-Qa’ida’s strength in these areas demonstrates not only its adaptability and determination, but also its resilience."

Two Views: Republican Foreign Policy Felled The McCain Campaign, Or It Was Irrelevant To His Loss

In one corner, Fareed Zakaria writing for Newsweek: "The electorate has voted no on the current Republican ideology on foreign policy."

In the other, Joshua Keating writing for Foreign Policy magazine's blog: "If anything, voters saw Obama's foreign-policy vision as not objectionable enough to outweigh his perceived superiority on economic issues."

What does everyone else think about how much of a role Republican foreign policy played in the election of Barack Obama? Leave a comment to let us know.

(Me? I lean toward Keating's view, but disagree with some of the other points he raised.)

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same: On Whether Obama Will Diverge From Bush On National Security/Foreign Policy

Democracy Arsenal takes reporters to task for, per Ilan Goldenberg’s words, “lazy” stories about “how absolutely nothing is going to change or everything will” on the foreign policy and national security front, now that Barack Obama is slated to become president. It’s a gross oversimplification of the articles he questions.

The Newsweek piece makes some valid points about the immediate, short-term hurdles Obama will face on his foreign policy agenda, such as the fact that getting to work on Middle East peace will have to wait until Israel’s elections in February and even, likely, after that. Goldenberg assumes that the readers of this piece will know that Obama won’t suddenly change the world, but I wouldn’t make the same assumption. Some Obama supporters I’ve spoken with have very high expectations. Some have toned them down. At any rate, I only see value in pointing out to readers the road map of bumps and hurdles that will make instituting Obama’s foreign policy vision difficult.

The two other pieces – the AP on Guantanamo and the Wall Street Journal on intelligence policy – are based on reporters’ sources telling them about specific plans underway. The Obama campaign has pushed back a little on the AP story written in part by the excellent Lara Jakes Jordan, who’s incredibly reliable in my experience; my employer, Congressional Quarterly, wrote a somewhat similar piece. At any rate, the article never states that the incoming administration intends to, as Goldenberg paraphrases it, “instantaneously” close Guantanamo. As for the Journal piece, my own reporting suggests there is some a question as to whether an Obama administration would want to be confined to the interrogation standards of a particular Army field manual. A top Obama campaign adviser told me in August: “He [believes] torture not be allowed in any form or fashion in any part of the federal government, and he would make sure that was the case. Whether the Army field manual is comprehensive enough to cover all those tactics and techniques, that’s something I think he’d look to his national security advisers for.” Surely many readers know that what campaigns promise and what presidents do once they get into governing mode sometimes end up being different things, as Goldenberg suggests. But if journalists didn’t point out areas where there was a gap between pledge and deed, what good would they be?

This objection, by the way, is no critique of the overall work they do at the Democracy Arsenal blog. It’s a good blog, one I link to often because it represents smart Democratic-leaning thinking on international/security affairs, and one I wanted Across the Pond to be linked to in return. I just object to this particular point.

Some Executive Orders With International Implications Under Review By Obama

The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the incoming Barack Obama administration was considering taking action on a variety of executive orders, the unilateral actions presidents can take to make an immediate impact.

Obama would repeal some that President Bush put in place, as well as create new ones. I’ve compiled all the reported orders that have international implications, including those that touch on foreign aid, energy, the environment, immigration and intelligence.

The Obama team is considering getting read of Bush executive orders that:
--“…barred the use of U.S. funds by family planning groups overseas that provide abortion counseling.” (Bloomberg)
--“…linked assistance for combating AIDS in the developing world to requirements that health workers emphasize monogamy and abstinence from sex over condom use.” (Bloomberg)
--“…blocked California from regulating carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles.” (Bloomberg)
--Allowed “drilling in fragile lands in Utah.” (Reuters)

The Obama team is considering new executive orders that would:
--“...create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.” (Post)
--“…chart a new course for immigration enforcement.” (Post)
--Require “that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act.” (Post)

But the Obama team is likely to keep an order that:
--Gave the executive branch “broad latitude for covert action in countries with which the United States is not at war.” (Associated Press)

That is surely an incomplete list. The Obama team has reportedly assembled a list of 200 orders that could be overturned, and it clearly has some new ones in mind that it wants to issue. One wonders if a couple other highly controversial Bush orders made the list, for starters: "...in October of 2001, President Bush issued an executive order establishing the tribunal system for enemy combatants. That was based on his authority as commander-in-chief of the nation’s armed forces. So was the NSA surveillance order, which set up the government’s ability to conduct warrantless wiretaps.”

Idea For A Compromise On Lieberman To Keep Him Out Of Democrats' Hair

Sen. Joe Lieberman has become a real quandary for Democratic leadership. He's an independent who functions as a Democrat, but endorsed John McCain and was extremely critical of Barack Obama. Some Democrats want him evicted from his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, where he could become a real thorn in the side of Senate Democrats and Obama, since Lieberman was most critical of Obama on his security credentials. Others fear taking away Lieberman's gavel would push him into the Republican fold, something he's indicated he might do.

The Washington Note has presented a tantalizing compromise: Strip Lieberman of the Homeland Security gavel, but give him something else -- anything that doesn't deal with security.

There is, however, one major problem with the idea. Lieberman, by committee seniority, is not very well poised to take over some of the panels The Note's Steve Clemons recommends giving him. He already has a couple subcommittee chairmanships, one of which would be stripped under this compromise because it's on the Armed Services Committee. Would the chairwoman of the Environment & Public Works Committee step aside to make room for Lieberman, or would the other senator more senior on the panel do so? It's hard to imagine they'd relish the idea of being robbed of authority that would result in anything nice happening to Lieberman. The one committee where Lieberman is best positioned to take over without any intramural fights is the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee -- not the most glamorous assignment, but maybe enough for Lieberman to save face and maintain some power in the Senate.

Al Qaeda Unsure About How To View The Election Of Obama -- Unless The Experts Are Unsure About Al Qaeda

Which presidential candidate the terrorists wanted to win became a campaign issue, but now that Barack Obama is set to become president, they seem to be a little… confused. And making matters worse, experts are just as divided over Al Qaeda's attitudes toward elections.

During the campaign, a Hamas leader endorsed Obama; then, the Washington Post reported that Al Qaeda seemed to favor John McCain. Over at the New York Daily News, ace terrorism reporter James Gordon Meek has dug into what they think now. The answer? They are “flummoxed.” Some want to call a truce with Obama. Others argue that the United States is the enemy no matter who is president, according to Meek. But after the story published, one former counterterrorism operative told Meek he got the story wrong altogether -- contradicting what another expert told Meek. Either way, Meek pointed out, Al Qaeda still has not made any official remarks about the election results.

Is it possible that they don’t care? Meek found that much of the Internet chatter among Al Qaeda types was focused on Wall Street’s collapse, not the U.S. elections. And at the Counterterrorism Blog, Roderick Jones notes that Al Qaeda seemingly made no attempt to influence the election, and said that perhaps previous attempts to influence elections were misread.

Roundup: Hackers And Obama, Palin And Africa, The Exile Of McCain’s Foreign Policy Adviser And A “Sun Tan”

There are a flood of tiny items trickling out on the foreign policy front since the election, albeit with varying degrees of substance. Might as well hit a bunch at once.

--The most serious of these items is Newsweek’s report that foreign hackers broke into the computer systems of the campaigns of both Barack Obama and John McCain. “Officials at the FBI and the White House told the Obama campaign that they believed a foreign entity or organization sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps' policy positions—information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration,” Newsweek reported. Obama’s team speculated the hackers might be Russian or Chinese, and it’s a good guess, based on the fact that counterintelligence officials say those are the two countries spying on us the most these days. President-elect Obama would be wise to devote some serious energy to shoring up the United States’ counterintelligence and cybersecurity efforts, subjects that are hugely important within the intel world these days but that received virtually no attention from the candidates.

--When Fox News reports something negative about conservatives, it must be paid attention to: The channel reported that, according to sources within the McCain campaign, Sarah Palin exhibited a knowledge of the world that I estimate wouldn’t have surpassed the understanding of a great many high school students or worse. Things like thinking Africa was a country and not knowing which countries are part of NAFTA. On one hand, it’s not as if Palin exhibited much understanding of foreign policy in public. On the other hand, feuding between McCain and Palin factions of the campaign broke out into the open late in the race, and this also sounds like a pretty transparent attempt at score-settling. Palin, for her part, says the story is false.

--Toward the end of the race, said a McCain campaign spokesman, foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann was exiled from the campaign, although the spokesman didn’t say why. An earlier report that said he’d been outright fired explained the decision by saying that Scheunemann had been infighting within the campaign on behalf of Palin. On one hand, given Scheunemann’s neocon credentials and Palin’s seeming inclination in that direction, it makes sense. On the other, that means he would have been siding with someone whose wardrobe was worth more to the campaign than him.

--In my rundown of foreign leader reactions to Obama’s election, I left out this one: Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi praised, as one of Obama’s attributes, that he was “sun tanned.” Berlusconi is notorious for his tendency toward controversial jokes, but this one was especially ill-timed.

The World Celebrates Obama -- But A Few Countries Already Have Demands

Around the world, leaders have mostly greeted the election of Barack Obama with enthusiasm, some of which is routine “congratulations to the new guy” you’d get with any U.S. election and some of which is no doubt informed by exhaustion with the President Bush years and a sincere appreciation of the unique accomplishment of Obama, as well as his more collaborative-sounding agenda on the international front. But not everyone is just offering friendly words; a few countries are lining up with demands.

ThinkProgress.org has the lengthiest rundown. Spain’s president expects “a more fluid and positive relationship” under Obama, no doubt a reference to some feuding with Bush over Iraq. Germany’s chancellor has had fairly close relations with Bush, but even she envisioned “closer and more trusting cooperation between the United States and Europe.”

But as I said, a few world leaders have already communicated their expectations. Afghanistan’s president said: “The fight against terrorism cannot be fought in our country, rather, our country is a victim of terrorism and we demand for civilian casualties to be eliminated.” Obama’s remarks about the need to cut down on those casualties and do more than military intervention were of course a subject of some controversy after Republicans made a political issue out of it. Russia’s president didn’t congratulate Obama at all, and aside from a vague expression of hope that Obama could improve relations between the two countries, Russia’s primary response was to announce its intention to station missiles near Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans for Europe – plans that Obama has been decidedly cool toward. Israeli and Palestinian leaders expressed a desire to see Obama bring peace in the Middle East.

Even the upbeat European Union was hinting at some potential conflict, as one of its officials said she would be in touch with Obama to “make sure we are working together on opening free trade,” arguably the area of Obama’s policies that makes Europe most nervous. A few countries were decidedly cool about the election of Obama. Other countries hinted more vaguely at hoping Obama would work with the world on the international financial crisis, energy, terrorism, food shortages, global warming and more than a few other subjects.

Already, Plenty On The Agenda Of President-Elect Obama

President-elect Barack Obama said tonight: "And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world – our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand."

Guess what, President-elect Obama? The European Union already has an agenda for you, because the eyes of the world ARE watching. In fact, they had the agenda before you won the race. You can read it here.

Since you've won, a few world leaders have had something to say, too.

(Oh, and if you didn't have enough messes to clean up back home: Wired's Danger Room would like to introduce you to the Pentagon.)

Looking Ahead On Somalia And Drug Violence In Mexico, The Shape Of The CIA And NSC And More

Following on the heels of the Director of National Intelligence’s forecast for the next president, some other outlets are getting in on the forward-looking game.

Foreign Policy magazine has a great list of issues that were neglected during the campaign, some of which overlap with the DNI’s take. The global food crisis and the rise of China made both lists, but Foreign Policy alone mentioned illegal immigration, drug violence in Mexico and instability in Somalia as topics either President Obama or President McCain would have to deal with that candidates Obama and McCain haven’t discussed much.

At the Counterterrorism Blog, Douglas Farah also laments the candidates’ lack of focus on Somalia, arguing that it is the foremost concern among non-state actors. “Whoever wins the presidency next week will face a series of international challenges from non-state actors that are being little discussed on the campaign trail and largely ignored by the media in the run up to the presidential vote,” he writes in a post that also mentions the spread of Hezbollah into sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. “It is too bad, as the next president will likely have to spend as much time on these issues as he does the economy.”

Newsweek, via Democracy Arsenal, paraphrases a McCain proposal to revive the old OSS intelligence agency but injects a little speculation that McCain wants to, in turn, dismantle the CIA. I think that’s coming from a spy community that’s worried McCain is too militaristic to defend the interests of a domestic intelligence agency, but my take was totally different – McCain has, in the past, criticized the Pentagon for wanting to hoard intelligence authority. It’s possible the neocon elements in his campaign dislike the CIA the same way all the neocon elements in the United States do and they’ve convinced McCain the CIA can’t be saved, but there’s no evidence of that theory. McCain hasn’t exactly said where the new OSS would fit into the greater spy community, so it’s easier to speculate on what he’d do to shoehorn it in there.

Bloomberg’s story on the presidential transition shares this tantalizing tidbit about discussions within the Obama camp about restructuring the National Security Council: “Among the array of questions being discussed is whether to restructure the National Security Council in light of post- Sept. 11 concerns about domestic security, says P.J. Crowley, who worked in Clinton's NSC and is leading those discussions. ‘I give the Bush administration credit,’ Crowley says. ‘They recognized they’d be turning over two active wars and a Department of Homeland Security that's still a work-in- progress.’” But how would it be restructured, exactly?

A Taxi Driver For Obama, And The Electorate In Microcosm

Nearing the end of the campaign, I want to return to where my excellent blogging cohort Michael began in his very first post: To a cab driver.

Since he’s in Germany and I’m in the United States, I’m obviously not talking about the same cab driver he was; I didn’t get the name of mine tonight, but I doubt it was Heinz-Gert.

He struck up the conversation, asking me about the election. I asked him if he’d voted yet, and he said he had not, but intended to on Tuesday. We talked about the long lines my sister-in-law perservered through back in Indiana last week, enduring a two-hour wait with my baby niece, and I told him to be prepared for it. As a Virginian, he’s in one of the two or three most important states to the outcome of the election.

Prying, I inquired about how he intended to vote. “I don’t mind,” he said. “I’m going to vote for Obama.” Why? “Because, in the debates, he was very steady,” he answered. “He is very cool.” Elaborating, he said that he thought Obama would be a level-headed, composed leader in a crisis, especially the current economic one. He’d felt the effects in his own line of business. Then he shifted to talking about people in his neighborhood and the people he drove around the Washington, D.C. area. “No one cares about the Iraq War this time,” he said. “Maybe a few.” And: “The Hispanics are really going to vote for Obama. They are so sick of the Republicans on immigration.” I shifted him back to his own opinions, asking him if Obama being “cool” was the main reason he was voting for him, or if it was a matter of his positions and party, as well. He told me he’d voted for Republicans before. “I like Obama,” he said. "But even if I didn’t like Obama, or if it was some other Democrat, I would vote Democrat. It’s just time to do something different, you know?”

It maybe isn’t the kind of ringing endorsement the Obama camp might have written, but it was clear that some of the messages the campaign wanted to get through had sunken in with my taxi cab man. John McCain may have the edge on foreign policy and experience, but Obama demonstrated to one Virginian that if there were a crisis, he’d be up to the job. Domestic issues, not foreign ones, are his preoccupation anyway, which is where Obama has placed the emphasis. The rest had nothing to do with McCain or Obama. For Hispanic voters who favor more forgiving immigration laws, you couldn’t ask for a Republican more inclined in that direction than McCain, but it doesn’t matter. McCain is a Republican in a year where apparently anything he said or stood for wouldn’t have changed the mind of the taxi driver or the Hispanic voters he knew of.

The driver doesn’t represent any scientific poll, and he surely doesn’t live in the regions of Virginia that would be most McCain-friendly. But I couldn’t have done much better than him, and he mirrors a great many of the scientific polls out there. As Michael said back in April: “What do journalists do when they want to know what the average Joe thinks about a certain topic? Right, they ask a taxi driver.”

Intel Chief: Next President Better Get Ready For Vast Potential Of International Conflict

As if the next president didn’t have enough to worry about, the nation’s intelligence chief has laid out a fairly daunting picture of the world over the next 25 years. The potential for international conflict, he said in a speech Friday, is huge.

In the short term, said Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, President McCain or President Obama still will encounter risks from Al Qaeda. The first months of the new presidency are a particular risk. But even if Al Qaeda fades, because of conditions in the Middle East, successor groups are likely to emerge. And no matter who wants to attack the United States, McConnell said, the risks of -- in particular -- biological attacks that could surpass 9/11 will rise, given the spread of technology. America should expect the threat of terrorism to stick around for the next 20 years or so.

But, McConnell said, the risk of international conflict elsewhere will rise between nations as China, India and Russia – in about that order – amass wealth and/or population, creating competition for resources as basic as food, water and energy. “In terms of size, speed, and directional flow, the transfer of global wealth and economic power, now underway, as noted from West to East is without precedent in modern history,” he said. Brazil isn’t part of that West to East shift, but its rise factors into things. Russia’s growth depends on diversifying its economy, he said. An estimated 1.4 billion people across 36 countries will lack basic necessities like access to agriculture, prompting intense competition for resources. Technology will help countries get ahead, he said, but won’t replace the need for traditional resources. And climate change and “global economic upheaval,” per the Washington Post’s paraphrasing of McConnell, will exacerbate all of the problems.

McConnell has briefed both candidates on all this, in particular on the terror threat. All the bases of McConnell’s speech are covered between the Post’s take and AFP’s, here.

Dueling In Virginia Over Defense, A Local Industry

I’m reminded yet again by an ad war in Virginia that foreign policy and national security are sometimes highly-localized issues. I’ve written about this phenomenon before here.

In Virginia, the Pentagon is a prominent local employer. As such, the question of who would provide the most defense spending isn’t only about whether we’re safe from foreign enemies; it’s also about jobs.

To make their case, Republicans have leaned on retiring Sen. John Warner, who touts McCain. “I'm confident as our next president, he will continue to support and champion the historic role of the state of Virgina in our nation's defense,” Warner says in an advertisement highlighted by Politico’s Jonathan Martin. Warner is a highly-respected voice on defense issues as a recent former chairman of the Armed Services Committee; he’s immensely popular in his homestate of Virginia; and he has a reputation as someone who doesn’t make partisan attacks.* All three make the advertisement highly significant in a state where polls show McCain trailing.

In his own advertisement highlighted by Martin’s colleague Ben Smith, Obama counters a false attack the McCain campaign has been making that Obama intends to cut defense spending by leaning on one of McCain’s own advisers. “John McCain’s gotten so desperate, he'll say anything. His defense spending attack -- it's a lie.” The ad quotes McCain military adviser Robert Kagan: “Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines to fight terrorism.”

It's just the tip of the iceberg of the ad war underway there on this very issue. And in addition to the other examples I provided before, the Obama campaign has recently been running ads in Indiana, which has a heavily manufacturing-based economy, highlighting McCain's pro-free trade stance and claiming it would lead to jobs being shipped overseas. How strange would it be if, in a couple key swing states, foreign policy ended up being the deciding issue in an election ostensibly about the economy?

(*Notably, Warner himself refrains from making the false allegation about Obama’s plans for defense spending, instead paraphrasing recent remarks from a prominent House member, Barney Frank. “Barack Obama’s liberal colleagues in Congress announced they will cut defense spending by 25%,” Warner says, although from the remarks it seems Frank was only talking about what he wanted to do, not what he would do or what anyone else would want to do. “Fellow Virginians, cuts in the defense budget will weaken Virginia's economy, weaken national defense.” It’s an upgrade from the false attacks on Obama’s intentions. Why not let voters decide if they’re comfortable with Obama in office if some [or even just one] Democrats want to cut defense spending, instead of making stuff up entirely?)

McCain Argues The National Security-Economy Connection, But Not As Adeptly As He Could

I’ve written repeatedly in this space – in my very first post back in April and plenty more since the economic crisis began to take root – about the links between the economy and foreign policy on the campaign trail. Per the Washington Post Thursday, John McCain is trying to make more of an argument out of it.

The argument, though, was a little muddled. "Raising taxes and unilaterally renegotiating trade agreements as they have promised would make a bad economy even worse, and undermine our national security, even as they slash defense spending," McCain said in a speech. "At least when European nations chose the path of higher taxes and cutting defense, they knew that their security would still be guaranteed by America. But if America takes the same path, who will guarantee our security?"

As the Post notes, Barack Obama has not proposed cutting the defense budget. He has proposed cutting specific programs, as has McCain but overall, he’s always made it clear that defense spending would increase somewhat under his administration. But McCain also failed to make an interesting point very explicitly with his remarks – that if the economy suffers, so does the United States’ security. A writer for the National Review did a better job of it recently. McCain has argued before that raising taxes – setting aside the question of whether Obama wants that – would hurt the economy, but just reading that quote, it’s hard to understand why McCain thinks that higher taxes would hurt national security in turn. Additionally, there is an argument McCain could make that Obama’s stance on trade agreements could hurt the country both economically and on the world stage – again, setting aside the question of whether McCain is right – but McCain doesn’t make that case very explicitly. And he doesn’t really elaborate on any of this in his speech.

The Post notes that Obama also has tried to link the economy on national security. “We can't afford another president who ignores the fundamentals of our economy while running up record deficits to fight a war without end in Iraq,” he said. That’s a clearer message, more easily understood.

Generally, both candidates have been effective at times in making the link between international and economic issues. “Both candidates have also made it clear that economic issues loom large on the international agenda for the next four years,” the Post wrote. “Both pledge to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. And although neither has sketched out a detailed plan for dealing with the international economic crisis, one of the early challenges facing a new administration will be how to restructure international economic institutions.” McCain’s latest message is not an example of that, and it may be too little, too late, but I’ve always wondered why McCain didn’t try more often to link domestic issues to what is commonly thought of as his strength on foreign policy issues.

United States and Russia Have Indeed Had “Like, Fishing Disputes,” Not That It Proves Anything About Palin

On Tuesday, GQ’s Robert Draper published a blog post that quoted a top official with John McCain’s campaign amplifying on the defense of Sarah Palin’s international experience -- which is that Alaska is close to Russia -- by saying that Alaska and Russia have had “like, fishing disputes.”

It is true that there have been fishing disputes in the region. It’s not a tiny sum at stake: Fishing for Alaskan pollock is a billion dollar industry, and the pollock catches constitute “the largest human-food fishery in the world,” according to the Los Angeles Times. As those fish began to migrate toward Russia, tensions have escalated; the U.S. is worried about Russian poaching of the fish and mafia influence in the fish trade, as well as Russian opposition to U.S. scientists studying the phenomenon.

On the other hand, it’s not exactly been World War III, or whichever World War number is in vogue these days. After the broader, non-fishing specific Palin-Russia argument became prominent, a reporter who worked in the region a couple years ago wrote of a trip aboard a Coast Guard vessel: “Every once in a while, a Russian fishing boat would appear on the boat's radar, and the Coasties would have to board and inspect it. At that point, he would be called upon to translate. But this didn't happen very often. I asked him what he did the rest of the time. ‘I lift weights,’ he replied. ‘And play a lot of poker'... I guess the Alaskan-Russian front was more exciting than I remember it being -- I mostly recall seeing a lot of whales.”

So even if it was an issue Palin had gotten involved in, it certainly doesn’t suggest Palin had acquired any major international experience in dealing with it. But as it happens, I searched far and wide for any evidence that Palin had gotten involved in the fishing dispute, to no avail. On the contrary, I only found evidence that she had not been. Slate’s Fred Kaplan wrote in September, when the Palin-Russia argument was first being trotted out at length: “There are no issues between the United States and Russia in this region, except for the occasional tussle over fishing rights (in which, even so, Gov. Palin has never involved herself).”

The McCain campaign, and conservatives generally, have tested a lot of different messages by way of explaining how Palin has the foreign policy experience necessary. In fact, a conservative strategist apparently unaffiliated with the McCain campaign trotted out the “fishing dispute” argument all the way back in September, but no one took it seriously, except a liberal blog or two that mocked it. They might have been better off just picking one story and sticking to it, because they come in for a fresh round of mockery every time they throw out a new explanation. The reason is because Palin has no substantial foreign policy experience, and it’s just not possible to explain her into having it. And the McCain campaign knows it. Draper also recently wrote that he was sympathetic to a pair of campaign aides who had remained loyal by not “leaking what a couple of McCain higher-ups have told me -- namely, that Palin simply knew nothing about national and international issues.”

McCain Calls For Stevens -- An Old Foe On Earmarks, Defense Spending And Contracts, Detainee Policy And ANWR -- To Step Down

A handful of outlets, since John McCain called for Sen. Ted Stevens to step down following his conviction at his corruption trial, have made mention of the fact that the two have fought over earmarks. That has been the biggest source of animosity between the two, but not the only one, a search of my full-time employer CQ’s records shows.

Indeed, a close second are two fights the pair have had over respective pet issues with a national security bent. One of Stevens’ biggest legislative goals has been to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in his home state of Alaska to oil exploration. When Stevens tried to add a provision to that effect to a Pentagon spending bill in 2005, McCain called the maneuver “disgusting.” Likewise, Stevens tried to stand in the way of a McCain provision to ban cruel and inhuman treatment of terror suspects during consideration of the same bill. Stevens wasn’t as vociferous in his language toward McCain’s pet item as McCain was toward his, perhaps because he knew momentum was against him. “I asked him if we could take it out, and he said no,” Stevens said in his role as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. “It does seem to me that he has the votes.”

There have been other conflicts, too. The earmarks feud between the two has sometimes spilled into Pentagon spending. Again in 2005, McCain called earmarks in the Defense spending bill (that Stevens helped negotiate) for non-defense projects like parks and museums “obscene” and “disgraceful.” And after a furor erupted over the award of an Air Force tanker contract that benefited a European company (EADS) instead of U.S.-based Boeing, Democrats tried to pin the blame on McCain, who had fought attempts to steer the contract toward Boeing because, he said, taxpayers deserved an open competition to see who could do the job best with their dollars. Along the way, McCain and Stevens again crossed swords. Wrote CQ’s John Donnelly this year: “McCain led the way in 2004 to block a no-competition contract for 100 Boeing 767 passenger aircraft that were to be modified as military tankers. That proposal was championed by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who now is preparing legislation that would give Boeing an undefined piece of the new contract.”

There have been smaller skirmishes between the men on national security issues, such as how best to free radio spectrum up for the use of first responders like police and firefighters who would need it in the event of a terror attack. And much of their skirmishing died down once Democrats took control of Congress again in 2006; they even have lent support to each others’ reelection campaigns. But that doesn’t mean the relationship has been warm. When it appeared that McCain was on the verge of winning the GOP presidential nomination, CQ’s Kathleen Hunter wrote, Stevens was asked whether conservatives would rally to support McCain. “They’ll have nowhere else to go,” he answered coolly.

For Your Amusement: Sarah Palin's Stylist Vs. John McCain's Foreign Policy Adviser

Couple days late on this, but passing it along in case anyone missed it: Sarah Palin's stylist makes more than John McCain's foreign policy adviser.

There's not much to it; sure, one could raise questions about Republican hypocrisy for attacks on John Edwards' expensive haircuts, or questions about whether the McCain campaign values style of substance. It's an amusing diversion at best, any way you cut it.

I wouldn't even mention it in this space if it wasn't foreign policy-related. But amusing diversions on the foreign policy front have been few and far between this year.

Obama Running Mate Gives McCain His Foreign Policy Message For The Finale

And so, in the stretch run, foreign policy is thrust back onto center stage. One of the McCain campaign’s three major messages in the final days of the election will be to highlight the remarks of Joe Biden that Barack Obama will be tested on the international stage early on in his presidency. “We will focus like a laser on those messages in the closing days,” a McCain campaign aide told the Washington Post in a Friday story, with the other two chief messages being that Democratic control of Congress and the White House is dangerous and Obama’s remarks to “Joe the Plumber” about “spread[ing] the wealth.”

Biden was supposed to bolster Obama’s foreign policy credentials, but instead he has given John McCain some of his best ammunition to attack Obama on that front. Obama tried to wriggle out of it by saying that Biden was referring to the next president, no matter who it would be. It’s my own estimation that adversaries of the United States would want to test either Obama or McCain early, but it’s also pretty clear from Biden’s original remarks that he was referring explicitly to Obama. He said: “The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

Now, it is true that Biden, despite saying that Obama would need “help,” also has strongly argued that Obama is equipped to pass the test. But it’s ironic that on the subject Biden was meant to strengthen the ticket, he has instead handed weaponry to the opposing campaign to aid their concluding attack.

Stop The Presses! Obama, McCain, Bush Administration Agree On Something (Negotiating With The Taliban)

I’ve written before about how Barack Obama, John McCain and President Bush have been playing a three-way game of tag on foreign policy subjects like Iraq and Iran. In each of those instances, though, at no time was the trio really ever on the same page, and certainly not without a bunch of feudin' and cussin' first. Now they are all magically as one, as of this month -- on the idea of meeting with moderate elements of the Taliban.

Says Obama, per Time magazine: “The Sunni awakening changed the dynamic in Iraq fundamentally. It could not have occurred unless there were some contacts and intermediaries to peel off those who are tribal leaders, regional leaders, Sunni nationalists, from a more radical, messianic brand of insurgency. Whether there are those same opportunities in Afghanistan I think should be explored.”

Says Gen. David Petreaus, per Reuters: “If there are people who are willing to reconcile (with the government), then that would be a positive step in some of these areas that have actually been spiraling downward.”

Says McCain, per a McCain campaign source who spoke to Wired’s Danger Room, via Noah Shachtman: “There are differences over timing, strategy, etc. But there is consensus that at some point there will need to be an effort to talk with some of these [Taliban] guys and peel off more moderate elements.”

"There are differences?" So maybe this time, they'll all start off on the same page, then end up going opposite directions.

Al Qaeda May Or May Not Love McCain, But That Doesn’t Reflect On Him

Not so long ago, John McCain jumped all over Barack Obama after a Hamas leader said he would prefer to see Obama win the 2008 election. Now, with the tables turned after the Washington Post reported on Al Qaeda websites cheering for a McCain victory, the McCain camp finds itself in a very peculiar position.

The most important thing in all of this is that neither Hamas’ endorsement of Obama based on what THAT terrorist organization thinks Obama would do to aid its cause, nor Al Qaeda’s endorsement of McCain based on what THAT terrorist organization thinks McCain would do to aid the cause, reflects on the candidates themselves. Hamas thinks Palestinians would fare better under an Obama administration in negotiations with Israel. At least some in Al Qaeda think that McCain would continue the policies of President Bush, which would advance Al Qaeda’s aims of keeping the United States in a draw-out war that the U.S. would ultimately lose. But Hamas doesn’t speak for Obama, and Al Qaeda doesn’t speak for McCain. Only Obama and McCain and officials affiliated with their campaigns speak for Obama and McCain. Voters should feel free to consider whether Hamas or Al Qaeda are right about Obama and McCain, but when considering the policies of the two candidates, they’d be better off going straight to the source.

That said, the shoe being on the other foot has been an uncomfortable fit for the McCain campaign. Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top foreign policy adviser, responded in part Wednesday by rejecting the Post story and arguing that the terrorists actually support Obama, not McCain. That argument got no sympathy from the Tribune’s Washington bureau. “I'm not sure Scheunemann win many points from the fair-minded by doing to the Democratic presidential nominee the exact same thing he excoriated the Post for doing to McCain,” wrote The Swamp’s Frank James.

Biden's Remarks That Obama Is "Gonna Need Help" On Foreign Policy Raises A Few Discussion Points

Joe Biden gave Republicans an opening to attack Barack Obama on the foreign policy front recently with his remarks that the world is likely to “test the mettle of this guy” and “he’s gonna need help.” Biden was brought on to the campaign in large part to provide that help, but surely speaking about it in those terms is not what the Obama campaign had in mind.

The National Review examines the remarks from one perspective – the right – and Think Progress, from the left, digs up an example of a surrogate for John McCain who said much the same thing. Starting with Think Progress: the organization found a video of Joe Lieberman noting that “our enemies will test the new president early.” But Lieberman doesn’t think McCain would need any help, so the video, while countering some of the Republican arguments, doesn’t counter the fundamental one that McCain is ready if that test comes, and Obama is not. Aside from the question of who’s going to be ready, one thing that is noteworthy here is that there’s recent historical evidence that the next president will indeed be tested, with the last two presidents encountering challenges from Al Qaeda in their first years on the job.

And there are older examples of this, too. The National Review elaborates on Biden invoking John F. Kennedy, noting that after his first meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, Kennedy admitted, “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts.” That would be a terrible problem for Obama if other world leaders thought that, too, even if the Think Progress team notes, plausibly, that “showing strength,” excessively, got the United States into Iraq. One suspects that the United States’ enemies would go after any new leader of the country, and maybe Republicans can make a solid argument that with his experience and guts, McCain will be better prepared for it than Obama. The experience side, anyway, suggests an advantage for McCain. It is on the question of whose policies are best that the argument is grayer.

(As an aside, one of the most interesting things discussed in the pieces above comes at the beginning of the National Review piece, where the author makes a valid point about how the economic crisis and foreign policy are linked: “Our country’s national security is inextricably linked to our economic vitality — especially in an increasingly interconnected world. In order to project power, we must have the ability to build wealth at home.”)

McCain And Obama On Asia, Africa And The World As A Whole

What took so long?

The attitude of the presidential candidates toward two continents gets some overdue attention from news organizations, with Congressional Quarterly examining the Asia policies of Barack Obama and John McCain and the Voice of America examining their Africa policies.

My CQ colleague Josh Rogin finds that the approaches of the two candidates toward Asia breaks down very much along the lines of their overarching foreign policy views. McCain favors “preaching democracy to adversaries in the region while at the same time prioritizing alliances over engagement with competitors in the region,” while Obama “leans toward more pragmatic strategies stressing incremental progress on regional security issues.” The piece focuses on North Korea, China and Japan.

VOA concludes that “Washington's foreign policy, whether under a President John McCain or a President Barack Obama would be almost identical to that of President George W. Bush.” Where there is a difference, experts concluded, it is that Obama has shown a tendency to be a little tougher toward Africa over its own problems, such over Darfur. A political science professor from New York does another take here.

Meanwhile, McClatchy and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel take a very long look at the candidates’ overarching attitudes toward foreign policy, in particular focusing on the hottest topics in the campaign. McClatchy’s ace team of Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay also go in-depth on McCain and Obama running mate Joe Biden.

None of these stories reveal anything particularly surprising. But what they do is condense mountains of material for readers – in the case of the McClatchy and Journal-Sentinel pieces -- or go in-depth for them on subjects that haven’t previously been explored at length – in the case of the CQ and VOA pieces.

Foreign Policy Is Swaying At Least Two Voter Groups

The economy may be foremost on the electorate’s mind, but for two voter groups, foreign policy-related issues appear to be heavily influential, and they could be with a third group, too. In turn, those voters can be influential on the entirety of the presidential race.

Barack Obama is the favored candidate among Jewish voters by a 30 percent margin, but that margin climbs to 40 percent among Jewish voters who rank Israel “very high” among their priorities in evaluating presidential candidates. Given Obama’s periodic knack for remarks about Israel that have upset some supporters of the country, that is particularly surprising; the Jerusalem Post has the details on both that phenomenon and the poll itself here.

Obama has also fared well among Latino Protestants, a group President Bush won over in 2004, and according to a poll that measured that community, increasingly anti-immigration GOP rhetoric and policy stances are partly to blame. Again, this is something of a surprise, considering that McCain’s record on immigration is more moderate than that of the majority of his party’s elected leaders in Washington. Reuters breaks it all down here.

And Asian-American voters, some of whom pay close attention to U.S.-Asia relations, “could hold the White House key,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Catering to Asian-American voters’ interests in overseas affairs is complicated, as I wrote about here, but there’s anecdotal evidence that Asian-American voters do pay attention to foreign policy issues that affect the countries from which they trace their heritage. Which may explain why McCain was putting out statements last week on North Korea and Taiwan. “If either campaign is looking for a place to get an extra one or two percentage points, Asian Americans are not a bad place to get it.” Taeku Lee, an associate professor of political science at the University of California-Berkeley, told the Journal.

European-Style Socialism From Obama?

The U.S. presidential candidates haven’t spent much time lately talking about Europe, but the continent made a cameo on the campaign trail this weekend. John McCain this weekend compared Barack Obama to socialist leaders across the pond: "Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the (Internal Revenue Service) into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington," he said. "At least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives."

But then, isn’t everyone a little less of a pure free marketer these days? Even if that's not the way they want it to be?

“John McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people ‘welfare,’” answered Obama.

Another Casualty Of The Financial Crisis: Foreign Aid Spending Under The Next President

While contemplating ways the financial crisis is affecting foreign policy in this presidential campaign – aside from the fact that the candidates are spending a lot less time on international affairs than they might otherwise – I thought back to something Joe Biden said during his debate with Sarah Palin.

Asked what spending programs a Barack Obama administration might set aside because of the financial crisis, Biden remarked: “The one thing we might have to slow down is a commitment we made to double foreign assistance. We'll probably have to slow that down.” Obama had pledged last year to double foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012, “arguing that improvements in stability and living conditions in poor nations would reduce the appeal of terrorism abroad and bolster the security of Americans at home,” according to McClatchy and USA Today.

In fact, foreign aid spending would not necessarily increase under John McCain, either. His proposal for an across-the-board spending freeze would exclude some programs – Defense dollars, for example – but McCain did not say foreign aid would be allowed to increase.

It’s already going to be hard for the next president to get on the rest of the world’s good side, and the financial crisis hasn’t exactly helped U.S.-world relations, either. But a reduced emphasis on foreign aid spending also means less of a chance to do what Sen. Dick Lugar said the next president needs to do more of, and what Obama’s foreign aid proposal was meant to accomplish: take steps to head off future problems by addressing them at their root now.

As it happens, the Council on Foreign Relations was thinking along the same lines, I discovered in researching this proposition. They make some additional points here.

A Sage Voice On Foreign Policy Speaks To Both Presidential Candidates

One of the most respected voices on foreign policy in the United States gave some advice to the next president Wednesday, not that much of anyone noticed. And while not everyone agrees with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar on all of his positions, few would dispute he knows of which he speaks.

His message, ultimately, was that many of the foreign crises of the last few years and the next few years might be averted by a more forward-looking foreign policy. What few news outlets that covered Lugar’s speech took assorted different messages from it. CQ saw Lugar siding with Barack Obama by “part[ing] ways with his party’s presidential nominee Wednesday by endorsing Democrat Barack Obama’s approach to diplomacy,” although Congressional Quarterly also noted that John McCain “is right to warn that ‘there are times when diplomatic approaches to rogue regimes have little efficacy.’” The Times of Northwest Indiana, Lugar’s home state, wrote that Lugar “called Tuesday for the next U.S. president to be ‘relentless’ in pursuing national energy security by developing wind power, cellulosic ethanol and other renewable energy sources.”

Both takes are fundamentally accurate. What I found most interesting about Lugar’s speech was the way he used specific examples of how the United States and a rival, Russia, have laid the groundwork for future success. Lugar singled out the India nuclear deal Congress recently approved as a way in which the United States has ensured continued friendship with an emerging world power that will be fundamental to future U.S. aims in the world. Likewise, he said, “history may record Russia’s unchecked movement toward an energy supply monopoly over our European allies, as one of the most damaging foreign policy developments of the post-Cold War era.”

Lugar has some specific remedies worth examining here.

McCain And Obama On Oil Company Tax Cuts

At the final debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, this exchange is almost certain to happen again: Obama says McCain wants to give tax breaks to oil companies. McCain says Obama already did. Obama says he didn’t want to.

This USA Today piece is the best I’ve seen all year about tax policy toward oil companies. It gets into the nitty gritty about how oil companies are taxed now, what a windfall profits tax would do and how this all compares to taxation of other industries.

It details the records and proposals of both candidates, so you can come out of the debate knowing for a fact that McCain’s tax plan would give breaks to oil companies, albeit incidentally, and that Obama did indeed vote for tax cuts for oil companies already. The article leaves out that Obama's support of the tax cuts was just as incidental as McCain's, because he voted for the overall bill that contained them, despite his opposition to them.

Palin Contradicts McCain On North Korea

If you thought Sarah Palin’s steady debate performance would put an end to her foreign policy missteps for good, you were mistaken. After John McCain came out against removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, Palin said: “Condoleezza Rice, of course, having worked on this strategy for quite some time—I have faith in her that they're making this wise decision and North Korea, of course, better live up to its end of the bargain there.”

The McCain campaign tried to explain away the gulf thusly: “Governor Palin's position is identical to Senator McCain's: the verification steps are not sufficient to date to warrant North Korea's removal for the state sponsors of terror list. ... She believes Secretary Rice and the Bush administration are wise to pursue diplomacy and that is what she meant.”

Except McCain’s rejection of Rice’s decision is the very opposite of having faith in Rice’s wise decision. At no point was it apparent from her remarks that Palin was talking generally about diplomacy. This is not her first contradiction of McCain, with that honor going to her repeated contradiction of the presidential candidate on whether to cross over into Pakistan to hunt Al Qaeda. If it's a disagreement on the issues -- such as her stance on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- why not just chalk it up to the "team of mavericks," as she did there? No, this appears to just be a lack of familiarity with her campaign's stance on North Korea.

Next President Will Have To Deal With World Anger At U.S. Over Financial Fallout

Add another item to the list of world grievances with the United States the next president will have to deal with: Blame for the expanding global economic crisis. Whether it’s Barack Obama or John McCain, the new president already is going to have to grapple with a severely diminished U.S. reputation abroad. The Bush years, I learn anew every time I travel to another country and talk to people there, have made the rest of the world hostile toward America.

Now, the financial crisis has led to yet more resentment. “German Peer Steinbrück, points a sharp finger of blame at the United States, telling parliament recently that it is ‘the source’ and ‘the focus’ of the crisis,” wrote the Christian Science Monitor. “British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was quick to point the finger last week. ‘This problem started in America. They have got to sort it out,’ he said then,” reported ABC News.

In many cases, that criticism of the U.S. has turned inward as countries deal with their own unique situations, and there are differing opinions on the degree of blame the United States should shoulder. And yet the fact remains: The next president is inheriting a world standing that has declined in recent weeks from the low, low point it was at, and that’s almost assuredly going to make it harder for the United States to call in favors even from its allies, be it on Afghanistan or any other foreign policy front.

McCain Stays In Asia, Where Obama Still Hasn't Visited

For the second time this week, the presidential campaign of John McCain has released a statement to reporters about a news development in Asia that the presidential campaign of Barack Obama has not.

This time, the country in question is North Korea, as opposed to Taiwan. Responding to reports that the Bush administration is moving forward with the process to take the country off the list of state sponsors of terrorism, McCain said that not only does North Korea deserve that distinction, but the administration did not properly include other Asian countries in its decision.

It’s unclear what McCain’s camp hopes to achieve by speaking out on a news story that hasn’t gained major play, and what Obama’s camp hopes to achieve by remaining silent.
Is McCain interested in steering the conversation back to an area of strength, foreign policy? Is he trying to work his way into news stories where he can? Is he trying to gain traction with segments of the elusive Asian American voter community? By taking a position that is in one way to the right of the Bush administration (opposing the removal) and in another to the left (favoring additional diplomacy), what message is he sending to whom? Does the McCain campaign merely think this is something he has an obligation to comment upon, as a potential future leader of this country? And why hasn’t Obama weighed in on either of these Asian subjects? Does his camp see little value in distracting attention away from the economic crisis that has driven a rise in his poll standings?

UPDATE: Obama weighed in one day after McCain, when the news was announced rather than before it.

More Explanation On Asian American Voters And The Issues They Care About

This Slate article is more than a week old, but it touches on two recent posts of mine, first about Indian American voters and more recently about the candidates' positions on Taiwan.

The point of the Slate piece is that Asian American voters are often neglected by national campaigns. There are logistical reasons for this, such as the diversity of languages spoken and the fractured partisan allegiances among an ethnicity that includes Filipinos, Indians and Chinese. There is the fact that Asians of all kinds are concentrated in non-swing states, a point I raised about the component Indian community. But this is the key portion from the standpoint of substance, similar to the one I raised about what issues matter to Indian voters:

"There are also hyperspecific concerns that are not ideal campaign talking points: Chinese care a lot about U.S.-China relations. Taiwanese care about China-Taiwan. Vietnamese favor anti-Communist policies. And Filipinos often vote based on whoever supports benefits for Filipino veterans of World War II. Plus, segments of the Asian-American community often disagree—as Taiwanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans do on Taiwan, for example, or Pakistanis and Indians on Kashmir," writes the author, Christopher Beam.

The piece goes on to discuss different ways Asian American voters can enhance their influence -- all, of course, with drawbacks. But it's fascinating to see there's a nascent effort there. If it pays off, maybe in 2012 or 2016 the two presidential candidates will spend more time on their policies on Taiwan.

Despite Similar Positions, McCain And Obama Weigh In On Taiwan Arms Deal In Different Ways

Taiwan hasn’t exactly been a priority for the presidential campaigns, and Taiwanese publications see no major difference between the two candidates – or President Bush – on the country. But where there is a difference, it can be illustrated thusly: John McCain’s campaign sent reporters a statement today calling on President Bush to add additional items to its sale of military goods to Taiwan, and Barack Obama’s campaign sent out no such statement. That jives with the general sentiment that McCain, for whatever reason, is more attentive to Taiwan than is Obama. Not that the Taiwanese population seems to notice, since they resoundingly back Obama, according to a Reader's Digest poll that also found, contrary to most polls here, that the United States favored McCain.

Now, that wasn’t the end of the story from the Obama campaign. It apparently responded to a Washington Post request for comment by simply saying that he supported the military agreement, but did not echo McCain’s call to include submarines and aircraft. And then they sent out to reporters that very Washington Post story, which, as it happens, focuses on the fact that a top McCain adviser until a few months ago lobbied on behalf of Taiwan.

Neither McCain’s statement on Taiwan or the Obama campaign’s emphasis of his possible motive is liable to have any impact on the campaign whatsoever. But it all falls under our bailiwick here, and it’s not been examined much of anywhere else. More importantly, the candidates’ positions could have ramifications for whichever candidate wins, since the military deal angered China so much that it canceled planned visits from its military officials to the United States.

For The Next President: Al Qaeda, Foreign Lending And Plenty More

‘Tis the season for looking ahead to the challenges the next president will confront, and how John McCain and Barack Obama would approach those challenges. Michael directed you to the National Journal’s series, but everyone’s doing it, including Popular Mechanics, which has taken a look at the candidates’ positions on science and technology issues that includes their views of the Law of the Sea. (And here, they offered some fascinating technology/foreign policy questions for the candidates’ first debate that I missed. Popular Mechanics!)

I’m going to shill once more for my daytime employer on this front, because when Congressional Quarterly puts together a package like it did for its magazine this week, people need to see it. The package starts with CQ Weekly’s “11 Issues for the Next President.” The international angle on many of them is obvious: “War,” “U.S. Image,” “Military,” “Energy,” “Immigration” and “Intelligence,” the last of which I wrote and I’ll discuss more in a moment. But the “Infrastructure” piece, for instance, delves into investments in transportation in Europe; the “Deficit” piece explores foreign lending; and the “Economy” piece dips into international trade.

The package also has a fun feature at CQPolitics.com: “Cabinet Maker.” CQ reporters culled the best information they could to project possible Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and other Cabinet picks for McCain and Obama. The interactive tool makes it enjoyable, but there’s also a helpful explanation of some of the Cabinet candidates’ work experience and past positions.

In my piece on intelligence, I explore the status of al Qaeda, the ongoing restructuring of the national security apparatus, what kinds of attacks experts say the United States needs to better defend against and more. I found that national security agencies were undergoing “reform fatigue,” and that while many experts believe the next president should focus less on the proper structure and more on achievable results, those two things are necessarily intertwined. But I recommend reading the entire series under “related content” here, and using the Cabinet Maker feature.

Palin, Around With Terrorists

Much of the focus on Sarah Palin’s remarks about Barack Obama “palling around with terrorists” has been on whether negative attacks work or not. The answer to that is: Sometimes. They do not appear to be helping Sen. Norm Coleman right now. On the other hand, it’s hard to deny that John McCain’s attacks on Obama, about him being a celebrity and that kind of thing, were having an effect on the polls. Ben Smith says the purpose of the new McCain/Palin attacks on Obama’s associations has more to do with raising broader questions about him than trying to tie him to a controversial figure, and that may be, too.

I think a whole ‘nother question, though, is whether the specific “terrorist” attack can work anymore. And that is one element of the Palin remarks. Accusing Democrats of being soft on terror – and it’s harder to be soft on terror than by “palling around” with a practitioner – worked well in 2002 and 2004. But in 2006, Republicans fell short when they accused Democrats of opposing surveillance on terrorists. And that has something to do with the changing nature of voters’ interests.

Another Twist In The Barack Obama-Great Britain Soap Opera Relationship

So much for the love affair between Barack Obama and Gordon Brown’s government in Great Britain, now that the a memo by U.K.’s ambassador to the United States criticizing the Democratic presidential candidate has been leaked to the Telegraph’s Toby Harnden. That’s probably an overstatement of the original condition; it’s been more an up-and-down thing, as detailed by British newspapers. But this won’t help relations, should Obama win.

Much of the coverage of the leaked document has focused on criticisms of Obama’s leadership style, personality and experience, where the ambassador, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, also offered some praise of Obama. But there were some substantial passages in the Obama memo detailing how Obama’s policies compare to Brown’s, too.

Among them:

--Conflict over Iran. "If Obama wins, we will need to consider with him the articulation between (a) his desire for 'unconditional' dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the [United Nations Security Council]'s requirement of prior suspension of enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin."

--Agreement over Iraq. "Whatever the detail, our own proposed transition in south-east Iraq would be consistent with Obama's likely approach. Obama's ideas on a more expansive regional framework for Iraq would also fit well with our thinking."

--Common ground on climate change and larger security issues. The memo praised Obama’s “progressive position on climate change" as well as his “pragmatic realism" and "balanced approach to the big security issues."

--A lack of shared vision on trade and Middle East peace. “Sir Nigel concludes that searching for a deal between Israel and the Palestinians is ‘unlikely to be a top priority for Obama’ and he expresses concern about his protectionist trade policy, while noting that he has ‘repositioned himself somewhat towards free trade.’”

But in the end, Sir Nigel concluded that Obama is still evolving, and his record offers little to suggest where he might end up. “Although he has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, and a regular attender of meetings in his first two, there is little Obama track record to refer back to."

Fact-Checks On The International Affairs Side Of The Vice Presidential Debate

The day after the vice-presidential debate, let’s review where the fact-checkers came down on what the candidates had to say on foreign policy. It wasn’t pretty out there.

--At Politifact, Sarah Palin gets a “barely true” for claiming Joe Biden had “supported John McCain's military strategies pretty adamantly until this race.” Biden gets a “half-true” for saying “John McCain voted against funding the troops because of . . . a timeline in it to draw down American troops.” Also addressed: Palin remarks on that natural gas pipeline and Biden’s statements about whether Barack Obama was ready to be commander in chief.
--At Washington Post’s Fact-Checker, Palin gets downgraded for claiming she was at the forefront of a movement in Alaska to divest in Sudan, when in fact her administration originally opposed legislation to do so; Biden gets downgraded for claimed that the United States and France had “kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.” Also addressed: Palin remarks on Iraq, and Biden’s claims on Hamas.
--At Factcheck.org, Palin gets knocked for claiming that violence in Iraq had fallen to “pre-surge” levels, and Biden gets knocked for mis-characterizing McCain’s views about meeting with Spain’s president. Also addressed: Palin and Biden remarks on Afghanistan, Biden’s remarks on clean coal and Palin’s remarks on overseas sources of energy.

For more, here’s fact-checking at USA Today, The L.A. Times,
and the Associated Press.

Quick Reaction To Palin's Performance On Foreign Policy

It'll be dissected here and elsewhere in the coming days, but here's my quick, unpolluted, pre-talking head take on Sarah Palin's performance on foreign policy, which we've discussed so much here this week:

She sidestepped many questions. In doing so, she delivered several memorable lines -- "white flag of surrender" -- that were better than making a mistake but not as good as answering competently. She also effectively exploited differences between Joe Biden and Barack Obama, on topics like funding for the troops. On that subject, whether Biden was wrong then and right now (my reading of the pertinent facts) is secondary; it undermines the credibility of Biden's current argument for him to have held the opposite position not so long ago. She made some errors, but nothing too shocking.

All in all? She did not fail terribly on foreign policy by any standard, let alone the low, low standard of the expectations she had set with some clumsy interviews. That was the least she had to do, and in my estimation, she accomplished that.

More Bad New For Palin On Foreign Policy Heading Into The Debate

The Associated Press just did the most comprehensive digging on Sarah Palin’s record of meeting with foreign officials yet, and came up with… not much.

Palin had said in an interview that she had been involved in “trade missions” with Russia, but the AP came up empty on that count. As it turns out, a gubernatorial spokeswoman had previously refused to even answer questions about the Russian “trade missions.” But the AP got a Russian Federation official to speak up, then another official who works for the governor.

In fact, the AP only found that she had ever had any substantial negotiations of any kind with one foreign country, that being Alaska’s other neighbor, Canada. Contrast that with Biden’s list, and it’s apparent what a daunting hole Palin will be fighting out of when Thursday night’s debate rolls around. Things beside experience – like judgment – matter when it comes to foreign policy. And yet, it’s hard to deny that Biden gets some kind of advantage from having met and talked with these foreign leaders in a way that Palin never has.

The good news here for Palin is that, in the expectations game candidates usually play, it would be hard for her to come in any lower. Maybe she demonstrates previously unrevealed savvy and ends up profiting from looking better than both opponents and advocates fear she might. Maybe, as well, Biden slips up in some way that makes whatever slip-ups she experiences pale in comparison. But, again, she is starting from a stunningly unequal footing with Biden on foreign policy.

Bad Omen: Palin’s Foreign Policy Inexperience Not Making Many Fans, And It Gets Harder Thursday

Generally, Sarah Palin’s lack of national office experience has been catching her heat ever since she took the vice president slot for the GOP, but specifically, it is her lack of foreign policy experience that has drawn the most criticism. Her recent answers on that subject in interviews has really brought about an incredible amount of blowback from unexpected sources – and unless there are some miracle workers in the McCain camp, it’s just going to get worse after Thursday’s debate against foreign policy specialist Joe Biden.

The new criticism from the right is fairly well-documented. But some less partisan analysts have recently loosed their tongues upon Palin, too. Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria called her comments about Russia vis-à-vis Alaska “gibberish,” said they were marked by “absurdity” and said John McCain’s pick of her betrayed that he did not, in this instance, put “country first.” My CQ colleague Jeff Stein offered: “It’s clear now, as if we needed more proof, that Sarah Palin doesn’t have a clue about the world beyond the Bering Straight. Or if she does, she can’t express it.” The Associated Press revisited her Russia remarks, and came up with this: “A stumbling interview with CBS's Katie Couric last week in which Palin equated her state's proximity to Russia with foreign policy experience may have been her defining moment so far.”

Ouch. But that’s just dealing with Couric, who did a good job in the interview but was rather non-confrontational. What’s going to happen when she’s being asked even tougher questions, requiring even greater foreign policy knowledge, and for comparison’s sake, answers to the same questions come from the gaffe-prone, but encyclopedic, brain of Biden?

Maybe it's just that the focus on her mistakes is sharper because she's done so few interviews, as McCain surrogate Mitt Romney theorized. But if she falls short at the debate, it could get very rough from here on out. Here's how serious it is -- George Stephanopoulos of ABC goes so far as to say this: "A major mistake, particularly on foreign policy, would be absolutely fatal to her candidacy."

Flip-Flop Allegation: Obama On Missile Defense

The right is calling Barack Obama a flip-flopper after his statement during Friday night’s debate that “I actually believe we need missile defense.” The truth is a little more subtle than any charge of a flagrant flip-flop that took life that evening, but either way, Obama’s position has apparently shifted over time, and his current stance raises some questions.

At one point, anyway, it appeared that Obama opposed missile defense entirely. Back in 2001, he said, according to a quote from a television station that the John McCain campaign rustled up: “I, for example, don't agree with a missile defense system.” That’s the only quote from the interview I’ve been able to find – what he said before or after that, and in what context, is not readily available.

But for as far back as I can discern other than that remark, Obama has primarily taken a skeptical view of missile defense, not a “no way, no how” view of missile defense. Almost all of his statements have indicated he does not oppose missile defense in theory. But he has favored cutting spending on missile defense – “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” he said in February – and has opposed deployment of missile defense infrastructure in Europe until certain conditions are met. “The Bush administration has been developing plans to deploy interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of a missile defense system designed to protect against the potential threat of Iranian nuclear armed missiles,” he said in July of last year when the Polish president visited. “If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies we should - but only when the system works. We need to make sure any missile defense system would be effective before deployment. The Bush administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes.”

Between those two statements lies the following question: Given the billions that have been spent on missile defense so far and that fact that the United States still has no working shield, how will cutting missile defense spending increase the chances of producing a system that works?

Kissinger, McCain, Obama And Iran

There were plenty of things to fact check from Friday evening’s presidential debate on foreign policy, but one where the fact-checkers seemed to come down in a couple different directions was Barack Obama’s claim about Henry Kissinger’s views on meeting with Iran.

My reading is that this Marc Ambinder breakdown has it right.

Yet More International Affairs Debate Questions With An Economic Twist

It’s still up in the air, this foreign policy debate scheduled for Friday evening between presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, owing to McCain’s campaign-suspending maneuver in light of the economic crisis. Yesterday, I shared some questions from Council on Foreign Relations experts on foreign policy that could keep the candidates focused on the topic of the economy, if that’s the primary concern these days. Today, here are some more, from Foreign Policy:

--Should the United States continue its embargo against Cuba?
--Would you be willing to cut farm subsidies to allow the Doha Round of trade negotiations to proceed?
--Do you support the U.S.-India civil nuclear deal, which would allow the United States to provide civil nuclear technology and fuel to India, a country that hasn’t signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
--How would you balance concerns over human rights and freedom in China with the United States’ growing economic interdependence with that country?

Also today, a liberal interest group distributed to my mailbox and others this interview with economist Joseph Stiglitz, who argues that the war in Iraq “broke the camel’s back” in making our economy worse – higher gas prices, a chain reaction by the Fed, the budget deficit the war exacerbated, etc. There are questions available to both candidates about how much they think the war affected the economy and what they’d do about it.

That I know the answer to some of the above questions (on India, both would answer “yes;” on Cuba, McCain would answer “no” and Obama would answer “just here and there,” a reversal of his previous position of "yes") is beside the point. The point is that there are plenty of joint foreign policy-economy-style questions available, and really, over the last two days, what I've passed along is just the tip of the iceberg.

Economy Got You Down? Don't Worry, The Foreign Policy Debate Has It Covered

As of this writing, it’s completely unclear whether there will be a foreign policy-oriented presidential debate Friday night, as previously planned. But if economic woes are the predominant concern, there are plenty of questions for the candidates on the foreign policy front that have an economic angle.

At a Council on Foreign Relations event in Washington this week, a group of foreign policy experts offered up the following debate questions along those lines, per ABCNews.com:

--With the United States' power around the world largely built on its economic influence, how does the current U.S. financial market crisis affect U.S. power in the world?
--With the bailouts of Wall Street giants likely to increase the massive U.S. deficit and foreign entities buying up a large chuck of that debt, what do you see as some of the foreign policy consequences of foreign entities buying U.S. debt?
--What's the sustainability of foreign entities investing in the U.S. at a time when the U.S. markets seem to be in so much trouble?
--Do you think that climate change and energy issues should be treated as separate issues? If not, how are they related?

Of the 13 questions ABCNews.com conveyed, four had an economic angle, and they didn’t even get into international trade. And even if these specific questions aren’t asked, it’s hard to imagine that the economic angle on foreign policy won’t be explored. That is, if the debate happens at all.

The First Debate Being On Foreign Policy Helps McCain… Correction, Obama

The two candidates began prepping Tuesday for their first debate later this week, on the topic of foreign policy. So clearly that favors John McCain, war veteran, long-time senator, Armed Services Committee guru, right? Except there’s a case to be made that it benefits Barack Obama, too.

The case for McCain is offered by the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart, here. It goes: “The debate this Friday at Ole Miss presents McCain an opportunity to go on offense. While the nation is focused on its financial future, the two candidates will square off on foreign policy. If McCain has a comfort zone, this is it. The bombing at the U.S. embassy in Yemen on Sept. 17 and the massive hotel bombing in Pakistan on Sept. 20 -- both during the worst week in recent U.S. economic history -- are stark reminders of the dangerous world America inhabits. McCain could still retake control of the conversation.”

The case for Obama is offered by presidential historian Richard Norton Smith, at ABCNews.com. It goes: “As we saw last week Obama has a clear advantage on the economy issues, so if he can diffuse the national security issue, which has been Sen. McCain’s strong suit, then I think going into the home stretch he probably establishes a clear if small advantage overall.” In other words, better to get McCain’s strength out of the way sooner, so Obama can focus on his own strengths when it matters most – just before voters hit the polls.

Smith, it must be noted, offered the case for both Obama and McCain. Which goes to show how easy it is to see both interpretations as plausible.

The Politicization And Depoliticization Of The Iran Rally

Both sides are casting blame on the other for the flap over whether Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and/or a representative of Barack Obama’s campaign would attend an anti-Iran rally in New York Monday. That’s fine, because there’s plenty of blame to go around.

Clinton was the original guest, but when organizers learned that Palin would be in New York around the date of the rally, they invited her, too. It is around here that the maneuvering began – liberal critics of inviting Palin saw political motives among organizers in boosting the John McCain-Palin ticket with Jewish voters (not to mention family ties between the two camps), and when Clinton abruptly pulled out of the event following Palin’s invitation, conservative critics savaged her for putting politics ahead of an important protest. The Obama campaign arranged to have a surrogate, Rep. Robert Wexler, attend. But by the time that happened, several liberal-leaning Jewish groups had begun a protest of Palin’s appearance, figuring she would outshine anyone from Obama's campaign other than her vice-presidential equivalent, Joe Biden, and Palin was out.

The fallout was swift. Some of the liberal-leaning groups were pleased when Palin was disinvited, a move the organizers said they were forced to make if they wanted the event to be devoid of politics. A local New York station reported that some unnamed Democrats threatened the organizers' tax exempt status if Palin spoke, infuriating the right. Said one of the groups involved about the whole mess: “Sen. Clinton’s appearance at a rally with Gov. Palin would have sent a strong message to Ahmadinejad and his cronies – that Americans understand the threat and stand together against it. Instead we have divided ourselves in front of it." Clearly the rally organizers did not consider all the ramifications of inviting a former Democratic presidential candidate and the Republican vice presidential candidate to their event in the stretch run of a heated campaign. But given how much Democrats have made this year about their confidence on foreign policy in this election, it is strange that Clinton didn't stay put or that the liberal-leaning groups didn't relent in their pressure to disinvite Palin once the Obama camp was prepared to send Wexler.

There really wasn’t any good way for this to end; once Palin was invited and Clinton pulled out, the rally was doomed to get wrapped up in the 2008 campaign, no matter what organizers did after that. Still, the rally drew thousands, according to news reports, even without Palin, Clinton or anyone else. It’s hard to believe the rally wouldn’t have been bigger had Palin and/or Clinton attended, but the publicity over the feud surely won it more attention than an anti-Iran rally might have gotten otherwise.

And if you get curious about what Palin and Clinton might have said, my old paper, The New York Sun, obtained the remarks they might have delivered. You can read them here and here.

Have Neocons Taken Over The McCain Campaign?

A few months ago, there were some news reports about the internal struggle within John McCain's campaign between realists/pragmatists and neoconservatives/idealists. Recent events, though, have led some commentators to conclude that the struggle’s over, and the neocons have won.

Three of these events happened in the past week. First, Henry Kissinger urged the next president to meet with the leader of Iran without preconditions, as Barack Obama had said he would do. This is the same Henry Kissinger who had been seen as one of the top realist advisers to McCain. Second, McCain apparently reversed a previous stance when he refused to say he would meet with the president of Spain, and one plausible explanation is that this was a deliberate slight because of his Iraq troop withdrawal. Third, neocon advisers have reportedly taken the lead in the foreign policy education of Sarah Palin.

It’s not just been this week, of course. As Michael wrote, one recent analysis is that hawks within McCain’s camp pushed him to take a harsher line against Russia. In fact, it’s hard to find many headlines McCain has made these days for any foreign policy position that might be categorized as realist.

ThinkProgress’s M. Duss wrote: “Hopefully, Kissinger’s statement will put to rest the idea that McCain’s foreign policy brain trust is divided between realists and neocons, which I’ve long argued is nonsense. McCain is a committed neoconservative, and has been for years.” Democracy Arsenal’s Adam Blickstein wrote: “McCain is not only an outlier, if he were part of the Bush administration, he would have already been marginalized and rendered irrelevant like the rest of the anachronistic and dangerous neocon cult.”

Granted, those two commentaries come from the left, which has an incentive to push the line that McCain is a neocon – not the most popular designation these days. But it’s worth wondering whether their basic argument right.

McCain Maims Spain In Name Game

It’s hard to get at what John McCain was thinking this week, precisely, when he refused to say he would meet with the president of Spain if elected. That’s because none of the explanations – three of which are speculative and one of which is official – entirely make sense.

Explanation #1: McCain didn’t know whom the interviewer was talking about. This is the most embarrassing possible outcome, because it puts it in the gaffe territory, and it’s not very flattering to McCain’s argument that he’s the one with all the foreign policy experience. McCain answered the question with references to “Mexico,” the “hemisphere,” “Latin America” and “the region,” and when the interviewer specified that the question was about “Europe,” McCain answered, “What about me, what?” as though he was confused, then went back to speaking very generally about his policy. On the other hand, McCain has spoken about Jose Luis Zapatero before, so why would he suddenly not know who he was? Which brings us to…

Explanation #2: McCain didn’t understand what the interviewer was saying, through no fault of his own. Of all the explanations, this seems to be the one that even liberal types have been offering most generously. The interviewer, they say, spoke with a very think accent. (Alternately, McCain was having a “senior moment” – not that such a moment is a good thing.) The problem with this one is that McCain’s foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, has explicitly stated that McCain did understand the interviewer. That doesn’t mean it’s the truth, but if it’s not, it does mean that the McCain camp would be lying instead of taking the answer that would cause the least controversy. But maybe they have a reason for wanting it to be known that he understood. Which brings us to…

Explanation #3: McCain intended to slight Zapatero. Relations between President Bush and Spain have been cold ever since Zapatero pulled troops out of Iraq shortly after winning election in 2004. McCain could be in the same camp. The problem with that is, back in April, McCain didn’t seem to be. He spoke in a very conciliatory manner in a spring interview: “I would like for [President Zapatero] to visit the United States. I am very interested not only in normalizing relations with Spain but in obtaining good and productive relations with the goal of addressing many issues and challenges that we have to confront together.” Nothing major has happened in U.S.-Spain relations since April that has been made public, so that means that any change would have had to come as a result of a mysterious internal shift within the McCain camp. So what does the McCain camp say?…

Explanation #4: McCain was just keeping his options open, as a matter of policy. The official explanation, from Scheunemann: “If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping your options open…” Few problems there. First, the interviewer didn’t ask for those specifics. Second, in the same interview, McCain implied he welcomed the idea of meeting with Mexico’s president. “I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are our friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion. And by the way, President Calderon of Mexico is fighting a very tough fight against the drug cartels,” he said. Finally, it also doesn’t square with McCain’s April implication that he would like to meet with Zapatero, unless McCain just wanted to have Zapatero come to America and not meet with him, for some reason.

The India Nuclear Deal And The 2008 U.S. Presidential Election (Part II)

(As Congress considers voting on a civilian nuclear deal with India in the very near future, now is as good a time as any to evaluate where the two presidential candidates have stood on the issue, and how it could play politically. This is the second of two parts, which focuses on the latter; the first part, which focuses on the former, can be read here.)

Both candidates bring up their support for the India nuclear deal when addressing Indian American -- sometimes called Asian Indian -- voters. Extensive data on the actual voting patterns of Indian Americans proved more difficult to find than I expected; they tend to get grouped in with other Asians, and considering that views on the Indian nuclear deal would surely vary between Chinese Americans, Indian Americans and Pakistani Americans, Asian American figures are useless here.

Estimates vary because their population is exploding, but according to the 2007 U.S. Census, there are 2.5 million Indian Americans in the U.S. Over the past couple elections, they have appeared to vote strongly Democratic; one estimate had them registered at 60 percent, while a poll from before the 2004 election had them strongly favoring John Kerry. Per this study, they don’t tend to vote as often as the general populace, although there is some evidence that they have increased those numbers of late. There does seem to be an anecdotal surge of young Indian Americans who are inclined toward Barack Obama. The reasons for the trend toward Democrats, according to a journalist who frequently reports on them: “If I had to theorize… I'd say it relates directly to a.) the geographical location of the community in more blue stats [sic] (like NJ, NY, and California) b.) how a President handles foreign policy in South Asia, c.) how religious/Christian the Republican rhetoric is at the time, and d.) the fact that most Indian Americans don't arrive wealthy - it's a slow climb to the top.” Because, as the U.S. India Political Action Committee notes, many Indian Americans are wealthy, they exert influence in campaign donations. They raised $5 million for Democrats in 2004 and $1.5 million for Republicans, according to a piece in the L.A. Times.

However, Republicans have been making a play for this group of voters. One evaluation of the voting group in 2006 estimated that pro-India policies championed by George Bush had helped pull some Indian Americans into the GOP column. Many Indian Americans favor conservative family values. Some of the wealthier among them might be inclined toward tax policies that do not target the rich, and resentful of negativity from some Democratic candidates toward outsourcing that has benefited India. And Indian American Bobby Jindal won election as Republican governor of Louisiana with nearly 90 percent of the vote from the group.

There is contrasting information on whether the nuclear deal is a big deal to Indian American voters. The LA Times story I linked above shows that Indian Americans mobilized to support the deal in 2006 and help push it through, despite other political barriers to doing so. An official with USINPAC said that for Indian Americans who voted in 2006, “the Indian nuclear energy deal was right up there with green cards and visas” as top issues. On the other hand, a focus group convened by the liberal Campaign for America’s Future found that, among its sample, there was greater interest in this election in issues of concern to all voters, from the economy to Iraq.

While there are a decent number of Indian Americans in swing states Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, because American businesses might benefit from increased trade, there’s a broader economic argument to the India deal, too. It’s not something either candidate spends much time on the trail talking about, but if the deal comes before Congress next week, it wouldn’t be surprising to see either of them touting –- a little bit, anyway –- the economic benefits of the deal and jostling for position about who supported it most.

The India Nuclear Deal And The 2008 U.S. Presidential Election (Part I)

Revisiting Palin's ABC Interview And Her Take On World Issues

I thought I’d missed my chance at commenting on Sarah Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson last week, but since others are still dissecting it, there’s no reason not to analyze what she said on our little slice of the blogosphere, foreign policy in the 2008 presidential race. Let’s try to do a little refereeing.

--Vice presidents. Palin was just plain wrong when she answered the question about whether she’d met with foreign leaders thusly: “I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you.” CBS found that you’d have to go back to Spiro Agnew to find even a vice president who likely had not met with a foreign leader prior to taking on the job of running mate.
--Bush doctrine. This piece in The Australian Monday may have been overly generous in giving Palin credit for “perfect nuance” on foreign policy, but it’s right about one thing: Different people mean different things by “Bush doctrine,” so Palin probably wouldn’t have been alone in wanting to clarify. That said, her answer betrayed a lack of familiarity with any single version of the “Bush doctrine.”
--Global warming. When she said that she believed mankind “can be contributing” to climate change, it was not a flip-flop. She has said in the past: “I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.” Each of those statements sounds at odds, and maybe they are meant to lead the listener down one direction or the other toward what she wants people to think she believes. Her position can be summarized thusly: “I’m not saying it’s man-made, but it might be.” It’s roughly equivalent to the view of an agnostic: “I’m not saying there’s a God, but there might be.” I think the more relevant question than whether she flip-flopped is whether there’s enough science to suggest more than mere “potential” for man-made global warming.
--Russia. It is true that if NATO accepted Georgia into its ranks and Russia attacked it, the U.S. “perhaps” could find itself in war with Russia, as Palin said. It’s actually the whole idea – if one NATO ally is attacked, the concept goes, the whole of NATO is attacked and must respond as such. But you won’t find many candidates who would have answered the hypothetical that way, for fear of being provocative. And was the Russia attack on Georgia “unprovoked,” as Palin said? Russia had made it pretty clear that they were agitated by Georgia’s actions in South Ossetia but Georgia continued along the path it did. “Provoked” and “justifiable” aren’t necessarily the same thing. Some would argue that Russia was indeed provoked, whether it was right to attack Georgia or not.
--Pakistan. Palin effectively endorsed Barack Obama’s position on going after terrorists in Pakistan without that country’s permission, a position John McCain has rejected, when she said, “I believe America has to exercise all options.”

Is Bush Following Obama On Foreign Policy, Or Is Obama Following McCain?

In this space of late, I've emphasized the ways in which President Bush's foreign policy has come to resemble Barack Obama's: On Iraq, on meeting with controversial foreign leaders, and most recently, on conducting operations inside Pakistan without its permission to go after al Qaeda.

The Weekly Standard offers up a different case: That Obama is actually following John McCain's lead. And on most of the examples the conservative magazine offers, there is truth in them. On the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, on Russia's invasion of Georgia and other topics, Obama over time shifted toward McCain.

Both cases, stated at their lowest common denominator, are true. Bush has shifted toward Obama, in some situations. Obama has shifted toward McCain, in some situations.

There's a kind of three-way game of chase going on here, where each of two candidates and the one president alternately distances himself from and moves closer to one or both of the others.

First On Iraq, Then On Meeting With Enemies -- Now, Bush Moves Toward Obama On Pakistan Strikes

It's remarkable, really. On several of the top, most divisive national security issues of the 2008 election... from Iraq to meeting with controversial foreign leaders... and now, to whether to conduct military operations in Pakistan against al Qaeda targets even if Pakistan doesn't allow it... President Bush has moved significantly toward Barack Obama in the last few months.

If this New York Times story is true, Bush has taken up Obama's proposal -- much-mocked by John McCain -- to take action across the Pakistan border without the blessings of that country's leadership. It is the key position in which Obama is more hawkish than McCain. McCain has said he will follow Osama bin Laden to the "gates of hell" as president, but he has drawn the line at crossing the border into Pakistan, reasoning (as many do) that alienating Pakistan with an attack on their soil isn't worth the trouble it would cause. (Interestingly enough, at a hearing I attended the day before the Times story broke, Defense Secretary Robert Gates -- possibly alluding to the divide over this issue on the presidential trail -- made the argument that Pakistan was too important to alienate.)

Indeed, the move has has proven troublesome, based on Pakistan's reaction. But that's not the point. The point is that, once again, Bush has done something that is more like the Democratic presidential candidate than the Republican one. And it hasn't much been noticed yet that in this case -- Reason picked up on it, and MSNBC briefly mentioned it, but I don't see much else on a cursory search, perhaps because it would require reporters to confirm the Times' account of a classified order and they simply haven't done it yet.

McCain Goes After Obama's Opposition To "Future Combat Systems"... Which McCain Opposed, Too

Another nice catch from the National Security Network: John McCain this week criticized Barack Obama for wanting to cut the Pentagon's "Future Combat Systems" program, when McCain himself actually proposed eliminating the very program just last month.

McCain has disliked the program for quite some time, per Wired's Noah Schactman.

Unless, of course, McCain was just talking about lower-case "future combat systems," as opposed to the expensive upper-case version that has critics just about everywhere, in which case the burden is on his campaign to produce evidence of that.

Taking Biden's Challenge On Differences Between Bush And McCain On Foreign Policy

"Tell me one single thing they're going to do on the economy, foreign policy, taxes, that is going to be change," Joe Biden said this weekend on NBC.

I answer the challenge thusly:

Part one -- there are ways in which John McCain and Sarah Palin would do things differently than George Bush has on foreign policy. There are some distinctions between McCain and Bush on nuclear non-proliferation, although they are slight and closing. McCain's rhetoric on Russia and Darfur has been more brisk, and McCain has taken a harder stance on negotiations with enemy countries than Bush has of late. Bush favors drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and McCain opposes it (at least for now). The full list is actually longer than that; those are just a few that come to mind.

Part two -- the fact is that McCain would do things more like Bush than Barack Obama would. On Iraq, free trade and a number of other foreign policy-related issues, there is very little difference between Bush and McCain. On Iraq, free trade and a number of other foreign policy-related issues, there IS a good deal of difference between Bush and Obama.

It's a framing question, more than anything. Biden was trying to use some shorthand. It just seemed that, since he asked, someone ought to answer.

Sarah Palin's Foreign Policy Education Is Ongoing, But Rice Doesn't Sound Impressed

The race seems to be all about Sarah Palin right now, even though she isn't around. She's not around in part because she's been getting a briefing on foreign policy.

I missed this last week, but the Washington Post added some detail to the Newsweek account of how Palin is getting up to speed, which I discussed here. The highlights include details of her trip to AIPAC, chaperoned by Joe Lieberman -- prompting yet more tea leaf-reading about her views on Israel. Another highlight is the list released by John McCain's campaign of the foreign trade representatives she had met with from foreign countries, which strikes me as among the more credible foreign policy-related credentials she has in a record that still remains very thin. The Public Diplomacy blog takes note of some other points from the piece here.

Condi Rice isn't impressed, either way. The Secretary of State declined to praise Palin's nomination in a recent interview, as she did for Barack Obama's pick of Joe Biden. I continue to be surprised by the lack of outrage from the right at Rice's friendship with Obama and some of her comments about the campaign; they've only indirectly attacked the State Department for undermining McCain on the campaign trail.

For The First Time, Obama Himself Goes After Palin On International Affairs Experience

Even though his staff has been more critical of Sarah Palin, Barack Obama has been mostly hands-off about directly going after her. That changed Sunday in the area where she is least experienced: foreign policy.

"I actually knew that Alaska was right next to Russia as well," Obama said with a laugh, responding to Republican claims that Palin is more experienced than he is on foreign policy. "I saw it on a map." And he threw a slightly more indirect jab by bringing up the experience of his own vice presidential nominee. "As somebody who's served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and passed legislation on issues like nuclear proliferation -- and somebody who selected Joe Biden as vice president, who is chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- I'm going to be happy to have a substantive debate with [John] McCain about foreign policy," Obama said. Both his remarks came on ABC News.

There's a delicate risk/reward ratio to Democrats getting too aggressive in their attacks on Palin, which will be tested more than Obama tested it Sunday when Biden debates Palin. Every delegate I talked to at the Republican National Convention said they salivate at the idea of the two male candidates attacking Palin, reasoning that women voters will rally to support her. My CQ colleague Jonathan Allen asks here whether Republicans have set a trap.

The McCain camp, for its part, continues to push the line that Palin is more experienced on foreign policy than Obama, based on her role as head of the Alaska National Guard, although that argument has been exposed as faulty in numerous outlets, since the president controls the National Guard in national security-related scenarios. Perhaps a safer argument for the McCain team is more like the one made by the Democrats: Being right on the issues matters more than experience. "We will stack Palin’s foreign policy credentials against Obama’s any day," McCain spokesman Ben Porritt said. "She understands the surge in Iraq is working."

This ends up being rather circular, no matter how you cut it.

National Security Vs. The Economy, Energy Vs. Foreign Policy, Giuliani Vs. Islamic Terrorism

SAINT PAUL, Minn. – It’s been a busy week here, to say the least. Let’s hit some links.

--Here, for CQ, I run down the reason this convention has focused so much on national security when voters care more about the economy. It’s a subject I’ve written about here before, but the piece elaborates on it, and features some interviews with pollsters and campaign aides.
--I had the same thought as Foreign Policy’s Passport here: Sarah Palin was looking to piggyback foreign policy with energy during her speech, which was a way of using one of her strengths to cover one of her weaknesses. Interestingly, as I’ve written before, John McCain has been using foreign policy to buttress himself on other topics.
--Rudy Giuliani’s statement that Democrats were afraid to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism” at their convention warranted a “barely true” rating from Politifact. There’s an interesting side debate about what labels should be used to describe this particular national security phenomenon. It erupted in Congress after the Bush administration itself issued guidelines about the best language to avoid inciting unnecessary hostilities with Muslims. Giuliani obviously sides with some conservatives who say “Islamic terrorism” is the best description of the phenomenon and should not be censored. Democrats obviously side with the administration guidelines that “terrorism” does the trick just fine without additional possible risks.
--I was wondering about this, and wouldn’t you know, Michael Isikoff is on it. That is, how is Palin getting up to speed on foreign policy? She handled it without incident in her convention speech, but it won’t be too long until she’s debating Joe Biden, and things could get interesting if he challenges her on foreign policy details and she’s not prepared.
--McCain is certainly a hawk, so it’s interesting to see that a top surrogate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, says McCain plans to bolster the doves who usually inhabit the State Department if he becomes president.

Obama And McCain On Voting Against War Funding

SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- Foreign policy quickly got into the Republican National Convention mix Tuesday. But it did it, in its most prominent instance, in a head-scratching way.

Republicans hadn’t much been using the "Barack Obama voted against funding troops on the ground" argument of late, but it surfaced in Tuesday’s speech by Sen. Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat turned independent, when he said: "When Barack Obama was voting to cut off off funding for our troops on the ground, John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide." President Bush made a similar point.
What Lieberman says Obama did, John McCain did also, but in different bills. The Democratic group Democracy Arsenal has two fact checks that are on point. Obama would say his vote was a vote in opposition to the war; McCain would say his vote was a vote in opposition of ending the war. But the claim of not supporting the troops either applies to both of them or neither of them.

Fred Thompson, who delivered the more fiery and well-received speech, largely steered clear of foreign policy, and usually spoke generally when he did, so no fact check is really necessary there – although he implied Obama believes he has to apologize for the United States of America, and to my knowledge, Obama has never expressed that desire.

John Bolton And Cindy McCain Get Aboard The "Palin Has Foreign Policy Experience Because She's Next To Russia" Train

SAINT PAUL, Minn. – It looks like this is turning into some kind a talking point: On Sunday, in remarks to ABC, Cindy McCain said Sarah Palin had foreign policy experience because the state she governs, Alaska, is near Russia; then, to a fellow CQ reporter, former Bush administration official John Bolton offered the same defense of her, adding proximity to Canada as a qualification.

It really is a bemusing strategy. Of all the arguments one could make for John McCain picking Palin, it offers the least. Via Political Animal: "Has Palin ever been to Russia? No. Has she ever demonstrated any expertise on U.S. policy towards Russia? No. Does she have any background in international relations at any level? No. But for Republicans, the fact that she's lived near Russia is somehow a qualification for national office. The mind reels."

The strategy is not original, though. Democrats, it must be noted, have offered Barack Obama’s youthful stay in Indonesia as evidence of his own foreign policy experience, which is slightly – slightly – more credible than the Palin argument because at least in his case he actually had been the foreign country in question. A common defense of then-Gov. Bush in 2000, when faced with criticism of his own lack of foreign policy experience, was that he had lived near Mexico, but that was a slightly – slightly – stronger argument because at least there was interaction in that case.

For now, it doesn’t look like the Palin camp is fully embracing the talking point, so one can guess they haven't issued it. A Palin spokeswoman offered this to the Wall Street Journal: "Alaska’s geographic location certainly contributes to Governor Palin’s experience since she has dealt with trade and economic issues as a result, but it is only one part of her overall experience."

Will McCain Change His Position On ANWR, Now That Palin Is His Running Mate?

SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- On one hand,
it looks like John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin to be his running mate very well could push him to change his mind and favor drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. "I continue to examine it," he said, and asked whether he ought to have a chat with Palin about the subject, he answered, "I probably should" and "I will."

On the other hand, the Republican platform-writing committee just had a bit of a scuffle over whether to include drilling in ANWR in its platform. And it was left out, officials said, specifically so that McCain wouldn't be undercut. Maybe they were just leaving him some flexibility?

CQ examines points in between.

The Thinnest Of Wisps Of Sarah Palin's Foreign Policy Views Emerge

SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- There’s more out there about Sarah Palin and her foreign policy experience/views Saturday than Friday. Let’s review it, vague though it may be:

--On Iraq, she made some remarks about not knowing “what the plan is to ever end the war,” but it’s hard to read too much into that. Thinkprogress.org, though, does have some thoughts on the subject. What’s more, Andrew Sullivan turned up an interview where she expressly said she wasn’t doing much thinking about the war, and said “I want to know that we have an exit plan in place.”
--It’s true she hasn’t visited Iraq, a subject over which McCain and surrogates were rather critical of Barack Obama. But she has visited nearby Kuwait. Other than that, her travel of the world is very limited – a stop in Ireland and Germany. She didn’t have a passport until 2007, according to the New York Times.
--There’s some speculation about whether, as a Pat Buchanan backer, Palin was somehow endorsing Buchanan’s critical point of view toward Israel. So far, though, even the amount of Palin’s backing of Buchanan is in question. And as governor of Alaska, she had signed a basic resolution affirming Alaska’s support of Israel.
--She has in the past indicated that she does not think global warming is a manmade phenomenon.

At this rate of revelation, it seems fair to guess that we’re not going to get much else on Palin’s foreign policy experience or statements. Her paper trail is very short. Whether that matters or not is inevitably going to vary from voter to voter.

P.S. Laura Rozen, an excellent reporter, is publishing her own work on the intelligence records of the two presidential nominees yesterday as well. She took a different approach than I did, zeroing in on one of the more fascinating elements of McCain’s views on spying, and next week will tackle Obama’s record. The first of the two stories is here.

Sarah Palin's Non-Existent Foreign Policy Record; Plus The Republican Platform On The World

SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- With John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, both presidential candidates have selected vice presidential nominees whose records reflect their exact criticism of their opponents. Barack Obama picked Joe Biden, who voted for the Iraq War like McCain, despite Obama’s attacks on McCain for that very vote; McCain selected Palin despite his focus of Obama for his lack of foreign policy experience.

What has Palin said about foreign policy? Virtually nothing. Foreign Policy’s survey turned up positions only on energy issues, where Palin supports drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge even though McCain currently does not. At ontheissues.org, she comes up “no issue stance yet recorded” on not only “foreign policy,” but also “war and peace," "immigration" and "free trade." And arguments from some conservatives that she has foreign policy credentials by virtue of Alaska’s proximity to Russia are a bit of a stretch, since it’s hard to find anything she’s ever said about the country.

--The Republican platform is now online. It gives surprisingly little attention to foreign policy, with just 13 of its 55 pages devoted to the topic, although it does give it chapter I treatment, unlike the Democratic platform, and it packs a lot into relatively little space, including positions on several continents and major countries from Ireland to India.

The Republican document asserts that it is the president’s role to decide on matters of war, leaving no role for Congress to influence matters – which is as much a foreign policy issue as it is a question of the proper role for the branches of government. It classifies immigration as a national security issue, which has ramifications for how legislation might come to fruition. And it gives some attention to intelligence, even suggesting reforms to Congress’ oversight structure, which is in keeping with McCain’s stance – but it’s still interesting to see the party taking a position on the topic. I recently wrote a comparison of McCain and Obama’s intelligence views for Congressional Quarterly here.

*I will be in Saint Paul all week covering the Republican National Convention for Congressional Quarterly and filing blog entries for Across the Pond as well.

An Irish Kerfuffle Over An Obama Statement

Via Ben Smith, a statement Barack Obama issued about whether the U.S. still needs a special envoy to Northern Ireland caused a bit of a dust-up recently -- first in the Irish press, then when John McCain came out in favor of the envoy.

There are a sizable number of Americans who trace their roots back to Ireland -- about 34 million -- but it's unclear to me how many of them pay attention political issues related to their country of heritage the same way some other immigrant groups do.

Fortunately for Obama, the Irish Echo offered a warmer view of his running mate, Joe Biden.

What Clinton Supporters Would Get On Foreign Policy From Obama

Hillary Clinton gave the convention speech Tuesday night that tried to answer the question that, no matter how many interviews I read with her supporters, I've never seen anyone really address. That is: If you backed Clinton, but oppose Barack Obama, are you thinking clearly about what would happen if John McCain became president? So many of the answers from Clinton supporters about their distaste for Obama have been of the "Obama never considered Clinton for vice president" variety.

Clinton, in arguing that supporting Obama would be supporting the goals she and her supporters believed in, didn't touch much on foreign policy -- fitting, for a convention that looks like it's going to spend almost all of its time on domestic issues. She did say that McCain would mean "more war and less diplomacy" while "we know President Obama will bring the troops home responsibly [from Iraq]... and repair our alliances around the world." A McCain presidency would translate, she said, into "more jobs being shipped overseas," contrasted with what Democrats would do.

Perhaps some Democrats bought into the other argument Clinton made against Obama, that she and McCain had the experience to make the right calls in a foreign crisis and Obama was a question mark. But policy-wise, backers of Clinton's views of international affairs have more in common with Obama than they do McCain. Maybe Bill Clinton, whose convention speech is expected to focus on national security (to his rumored dismay), will draw those contrasts more starkly.

Democratic Platform Demonstrates Evolution On Security

If the Republican National Convention appears designed to highlight national security, the Democrats' platform appears designed to de-emphasize it. That's the conclusion reached by the Wall Street Journal here about the Democrats' document, and it's a fair one.

The 2004 party platform used 19 of its 39 pages to discuss national security and related foreign policy issues. The 2008 platform, approved Monday, nearly 17 of its 57 pages (not counting the index) are about national security and foreign policy.

Party platforms, of course, are usually more important to the party base than the broader public. "But it offers clues to shifting priorities or a rethinking of stances," the Journal writes, and those signs all point to a party emphasis that has changed from national security to domestic concerns.

WSJ's piece makes several key points, but leaves out a primary difference between the 2004 platform and this one: Iraq. The 2004 document noted that "people of good will" can disagree on whether the war should have been waged at all; the 2008 document calls it a "strategic blunder." The 2004 document makes no real mention of ending the war; the 2008 document repeats the call to end it "responsibly" several times over.

The platform's here, and it addresses foreign policy-related topics as diverse as Iran and immigration. You can compare it to the 2004 platform here.

Some Foreign Policy Differences Between Obama And Biden

You rarely see vice presidential candidates speak out against their running mates, but the policy differences between #1 and #2 on the ticket can matter for any number of reasons, most notably that the opposition will use the VP nominee's remarks against the rival presidential candidate. That's sort of what's been happening already with Republican ad campaigns featuring Joe Biden's sometimes-critical remarks of Barack Obama. The focus has been on Biden's comments about Obama's experience level, but soon enough, some of the other differences between the two may come back to haunt the Democratic slate. Here are four areas where Biden and Obama have diverged on foreign policy.

Iraq:

Biden voted in favor of authorizing military force in Iraq, which Obama opposed. As Michael says, this inconsistency weakens Obama's judgment-based argument against John McCain, but the effect policy-wise is negligible now that they both support removing U.S. troops. They have differed before on voting for continued war funding and Biden's proposal to divide Iraq into three states, although they are now essentially on the same page on the latter.

Trade:

Biden voted in favor of NAFTA, but since has come around to Obama's position that the deal should be renegotiated. Canada is worried. Biden appears to be trending toward more protectionist sentiments overall, having voted against two recent trade deals.

Cuba:

Biden has supported the economic embargo. Obama has supported removing some restrictions.

Darfur:

Biden has gone a little farther than Obama on Sudan; he supports sending U.S. troops, whereas Obama's chief foreign policy adviser has in the past expressed similar thoughts even if Obama himself apparently has not.

Whether McCain Wants To Reinstate The Draft

Liberal bloggers have pounced on John McCain's agreement with a town hall participant on a long list of things she said, a list that included her belief the United States should reinstate the national military draft if it wants to catch Osama bin Laden. Marc Ambinder gives McCain the benefit of the doubt that he meant something else. Liberal bloggers say that's typical of the media's kid glove treatment of McCain. My two cents:

McCain has, indeed, frequently received the benefit of the doubt from the media. And if you piece together enough of McCain's disparate comments -- his argument that it would take a complete World War III to reinstate the draft, another remark he made about our current proximity to World War III, etc. -- I can kind of see why they would think McCain sincerely wants to restore the draft.

But McCain has been fairly consistent in his record of opposing the reinstatement of the military draft. That's where he said he was in 2000. It's where he's said he is in 2008.

His answer to the audience member looks more like a careless remark than an actual sincere statement of his policy. If thinkers and activists on the left wants to make a big deal out of what he said, they could try to relate it to McCain's history of gaffes, or his age. They could even argue that, with the degree that he has talked tough against any number of countries and forces, he would have to reinstate the draft to act on any of his threats. But they really have to stretch to make it look like McCain's de facto, unstated policy is that he supports reinstating the draft, and that his recent remarks accidentally revealed his true stance.

But the left still has a point that it demands some follow-up. McCain, after all, didn't disagree with his audience member, so a clarification wouldn't hurt. Said Think Progress: "Considering this record, journalists should be inquiring further about McCain’s views on the military draft rather than automatically assuming McCain didn’t mean what he actually said."

Republican Convention Speakers, Themes Lineup Emphasizes Security

You can take a lot of messages from the Republicans' choices of speakers and themes for their national convention, but among them is surely an emphasis on security. I think it once again illustrates a campaign-long dilemma about whether John McCain is going to be focusing on his strengths -- his foreign policy experience -- over what voters say they want to hear about most -- the economy.

On Day 1, "Service" is the theme. The idea is to highlight McCain's service to the country, and that will inevitably mean a lot of talk about his record as a Vietnam War veteran and how that is one of his qualifications to be president, not to mention his lengthy Senate tenure, which has been heavily focused on security. Speaking is Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent whose primary ideological affinity for McCain is on topics like the Iraq War, and President Bush and Vice President Cheney, whose two terms have focused heavily on national security.

Day 2's theme is "Reform," but that day's biggest-name speaker, and the keynoter for the entire convention, is Rudy Giuliani. Besides Bush, no one is more closely linked in his political identity with the Sept. 11 terror attacks than the former New York City mayor. And Giuliani's speech in 2004 to the convention was very much about security.

Day 3 is about "Prosperity," and this should be the biggest day off for national security issues -- unless McCain's running mate, expected to speak that day and not yet named, turns out to be someone whose primary credentials are a background in foreign policy, the military, or something like that.

And Day 4's theme is "Peace," which very clearly is about national security. It's in the name. The speakers aren't people clearly affiliated with national security above all -- Govs. Tim Pawlenty and Charlie Crist, for instance -- except for, well, McCain himself.

McCain Camp Makes Syria Attack Of Little Substance Against Obama, But Substance May Not Have Been The Point

A few months ago, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers made an ill-advised trip -- strategically-speaking, and perhaps in other ways -- to meet with leaders of Hamas. Wednesday, John McCain's campaign tried to make an issue out of another Obama foreign policy adviser's visit with the president of Syria. The attack, issued via conference call with reporters, didn't have much to it.

Unlike with Hamas, Obama has always said he'd be willing to meet with the leader of Syria, so an adviser doing the same thing on his own in what Obama's spokespeople called a non-campaign trip isn't as strange. And the Obama campaign was quick to point out McCain's own visit to meet with Syria's then-president in 1984, among other similar gestures. Questions the McCain campaign raised about side issues -- whether the meeting should have been disclosed, whether Obama has too many foreign policy advisers, etc. -- were maybe more on target, but still, in the end, secondary to the thrust of Wednesday's attack.

The attack backfired in at least one other way. The conference call led reporters to question Rudy Giuliani's own business associations with unpopular foreign leaders and Randy Scheunemann's lobbying ties with foreign countries. One aggressive questioner got cut off, and the call ended up being rather short.

Whether the attack is substantial may be beside the point. Lynn Sweet makes the case that it was primarily designed to weaken Obama's support among Jewish voters in key states like Florida, and Jewish donors around the country.

Nunn, Hagel Probably Out As Obama Vice President, Leaving Biden, Richardson As The "Foreign Policy" Picks

With Barack Obama as little as one day away from announcing his vice presidential choice, it's worth revisiting the field vis-a-vis the whole "Obama should pick someone who bolsters him on foreign policy" argument.

Two intriguing potential running mates, Sam Nunn and Chuck Hagel, have in the past couple days done or said the kind of things that indicate they won't be the choice. Nunn, the former Senate Armed Services chairman whose name is synonymous with ridding the world of one of its greatest threats -- loose nuclear material -- said in an article published yesterday that his finances have not been vetted by the Obama campaign. Hagel, "a leading Republican voice on international affairs and an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq," per CNN, last week said the he would not endorse Obama or John McCain. In the case of Nunn, it's almost impossible for the Obama campaign to vet his finances as quickly as they would need to by this week. In the case of Hagel, it's hard to imagine the Obama camp selecting a VP nominee who wouldn't even endorse him.

Among top foreign policy hands on the list of speculative nominees, that leaves, primarily, Joe Biden (respected long-time Senate Foreign Relations' top Democrat) and Bill Richardson (he of the extensive diplomatic resume). Biden, of course, recently visited Georgia as something of a representative for Obama. And Richardson's home state of New Mexico was on Obama's schedule this week.

There are some other nominees who could make some kind of foreign policy experience-related claim, but none quite like Nunn, Hagel, Biden or Richardson. For instance, Evan Bayh, one of the top names being mentioned, has focused a good deal on national security during his Senate career, but that career has been rather short, comparatively. And, of course, there's a chance Obama has some seasoned foreign policy hand on his list no one even imagined he did.

McCain And Obama Duel Over Missile Defense Post-Georgia/Russia

One of the lesser-noticed aspects of the Russia/Georgia conflict is how it highlights differences between John McCain and Barack Obama on missile defense. My CQ colleague Josh Rogin broke it down amid a piece he did on how the conflict would affect the congressional debate on the United States' attempts to place missile sites in Europe.

McCain appears to believe his more hawkish, pro-missile defense stance could benefit him, because he put out a statement recently praising the U.S.-Poland pact. Since that pact is very related to the Russia/Georgia struggle, it allows McCain to keep his position on the conflict -- which has generated positive coverage for him -- at the forefront. Per CQ, speaking of congressional advocates of the sites: "Leading those advocates is presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., who sees the sites as a badly needed component of the American strategic presence in the region. He is quick to link their necessity to Russia’s increasingly aggressive posture. 'Russia’s objections (to the sites) have never been based on anything more than trying to define a sphere of influence in Europe and on the territory of existing NATO members,' said McCain’s top foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann, 'Senator McCain believes that is unacceptable — especially in the aftermath of Russia’s brutal invasion of Georgia.'" (Interestingly, here's what McCain said in his Poland statement about Russia: "Threatening attacks against Poland, a NATO ally, is a wholly inappropriate response to an agreement that is not aimed at countering Russia.")

Obama's office has, in recent days, remained more skeptical, which is consistent of Obama's record. “Congress will not and should not fund a system until testing has proven that it works, and that testing will not be completed until 2010 at the earliest,” said Wendy Morigi, an Obama spokeswoman.

For more on the differences between the candidates on these and related issues, read on here.

Russia/Georgia Conflict Changes The Whole Outlook For McCain Or Obama

Liberals are mocking John McCain and other conservatives for talking up the threat of Russia after not so long ago talking up the threat of Muslim fundamentalists and Iran, but the fact remains that whether McCain or Barack Obama is the next U.S. president, the commander in chief will almost certainly be dealing with a significantly more contentious United States-Russia relationship.

And, what's more, that has other ramifications for America's relationship with other parts of the world, like Europe.

Different Question: Have McCain And Obama Affected The Situation In Georgia?

What happens in U.S. presidential races can, theoretically, have an impact on the world. Example: because of the speculative nature of energy prices, there were some who believed Hillary Clinton's remarks about how the United States could "obliterate" Iran had a chance of affecting the cost of gasoline. To my knowledge, that didn't happen. But an adviser to Barack Obama adviser has raised questions in recent days about whether John McCain's early "belligerent" statements about Georgia and Russia exacerbated the conflict.

McCain, asked about this at a Wednesday news conference, sidestepped the question by saying now is not the time for partisanship. Into the breach stepped National Review, answering that because a different Obama adviser had said Obama and McCain were basically on the same page after the early reaction, it must be the case that Obama was making the situation worse too, right?

Nonetheless, a third Obama adviser raised the possibility that soothing statements might have had more of an impact. Per The Washington Post: "Obama's more nuanced tone may reflect the debate going on among his advisers, who say they must bear in mind the messy geopolitical reality that America relies on Russia on a host of issues, from Iran to nuclear proliferation to energy and climate change. 'Part of the reason we don't have leverage is that we don't have a U.S.-Russian relationship. It has been adrift,' Michael McFaul said. Referring to McCain, he added, 'It's easy to say something belligerent about Russia. I'm no friend of Vladimir Putin, and cheap shots about tough talk are all well and fine. But what are you doing to actually make the situation better?'"

A whole different question, more speculative even than the question I'm asking here and that I'll leave to Porch Dog: Might conversations between McCain and members of his camp -- one of whom had very close ties to Georgia and top Bush administration neoconservatives -- and the president of Georgia actually contributed to the escalation?

In the end, said one expert, tough talk from neither Obama nor McCain matters. "This type of bluster is fairly counterproductive because it is a bluff, there's nothing we can do about this," Clifford Gaddy of the Brookings Institution told the Washington Post.

My own observation: It's hard to imagine that Vladimir Putin cares much what was said by McCain, a possible future president, because so far, he's not given many indications that he cares what anyone thinks. And while McCain has been at the forefront of harsh rhetoric against Russia since the conflict began, pretty much the entire Western world has condemned what Russia's been doing, so what difference can one presidential candidate make by condemning it more?

Getting Out Of The Presidential Prognostication Business RE: Russia

For a few days, Michael and I have been trying to forecast how, or if, the Russia/Georgia conflict will have any impact on the presidential race. I think we both raise relevant and important points, but I'm giving up, for now.

First off, the situation's too fluid. One of the things I cited in my argument against the conflict making a difference domestically was Russia's stated acceptance of a ceasefire. Of course, that apparently didn't last very long, if Russia ever even ceased fire even for a minute. There are things neither Michael nor I have discussed in detail, such as a John McCain adviser lobbying ties with Georgia, which could lead voters to question his character, or the way McCain said the Christian nature of Georgia warrants U.S. interest, which could bolster his appeal with a very active voter group, the evangelicals, that has been skeptical of him. More things that pop up during the conflict could further affect the race in an unforeseen way.

Second off, it's straying too far from what I think political journalism ought to be about. There's nothing inherently wrong with examining polls, or trying to ascertain key moments in a race, or anything like that. But I've spent too much time on it of late, and that preoccupation is where political journalists don't help anyone. It's back to the policy shed for me, starting tomorrow.

The Answer To Whether The 2008 Presidential Race Will Be Affected By The Georgia/Russia Conflict

Answering my own question, it now looks like the candidates' responses to the Georgia/Russia conflict probably won't have much impact on the race.

Why not? A few reasons.

--One of the best arguments for how the race could end up affecting people in the United States is that there was an oil pipeline in the region, and that gasoline prices could climb. Instead, they fell.

--While John McCain got some good press for his early, hawkish reaction toward Russia's aggression -- not to mention his historically hawkish stance toward Russia, which once was viewed by foreign policy experts as overly hostile but now looks prescient -- it really only reinforced his previous pluses. Much as Barack Obama needed, with his overseas trip, to bolster his foreign policy credentials to go along with strong polling on domestic issues, McCain needs to bolster his domestic policy credentials to complement his international affairs advantage.

--In the end, the two candidates' stances were mostly indistinguishable. McCain's rhetoric was harsher throughout, while Obama was more cautious to begin with, but their prescriptions for how the problem needed to be fixed were similar by Monday.

--With the conflict subsiding at least temporarily, the possibility of U.S. lives being lost diminishes, and therefore voters' interest are probably not likely to be aroused substantially unless that changes.

How Much Does McCain's Early Statement Against Russia Really Help Him?

I'm not disputing that the reaction of the presidential candidates to the Georgia/Russia war has been a positive news story for John McCain. I'm just thinking out loud here:

As much as the war has been in the news, are there any voters who really are going to be more inclined to favor one candidate over the other because of how he reacted to a distant conflict that involves, to this point, no American lives?

Foreign Policy Not That Important To Voters, But Maybe It Is When It Comes To Their Backyards

There's an indirect foreign policy angle to plenty in this campaign. Gasoline prices may on the surface be a domestic/economic issue, but because it's so closely related to the United States' dependence on overseas oil, it's foreign policy-related whether voters want the candidates to emphasize foreign policy issues or not. (They don't.)

In two new ads, the Barack Obama campaign has gone after John McCain on two foreign policy-related issues that are in the backyards of Nevada and Ohio voters. The first attacks McCain in Ohio on an issue Michael blogged about recently, DHL, which involves a German company. The second attacks McCain in Nevada over his stance in favor of opening Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste, which is part of his proposal for reducing America's dependence on foreign oil.

I'm guessing most voters -- i.e., those mentioned in the afore-linked poll who say they want the candidates to focus on domestic issues -- aren't thinking about the ways in which domestic and foreign policy are so interrelated. Either way, Obama's brought it to their home states.

Poll Shows Voters Prefer McCain On Iraq, Plus Other Fascinating Things

I'll just come straight out with it and issue a correction. Not so long ago, I argued that there was hardly any way that Iraq could be a problem for Barack Obama, since the wide consensus was that the war should never have begun and Obama had some built-in flexibility in his plan. But a new poll shows John McCain has the edge on the topic -- "One in four voters are 'very confident' McCain will make the right decisions on Iraq, while just 14 percent say the same of Obama." Obama gets more people who are "somewhat confident," but he also has higher "not confident" ratings. Why is this? Without any interviewing of the people polled, I would have to guess it's McCain's "commander in chief" credentials and the possibility that even if people don't like the war, they may not want to leave prematurely. Obama and McCain are far more alike in their Iraq positions than when the Obama-Hillary Clinton showdown ended, but McCain favors "conditions on the ground" first over "timetables," and it's the other way around for Obama.

The poll has some other fascinating foreign policy figures. Polls, of course, are not predictors, and with how frequently they're taken, they are little more than snapshots of a moment in time. But they can contain valuable information and shape how candidates behave. Among the foreign policy highlights of the full poll:

--Sticking with Iraq, only 17 percent of people think it is the most important issue to discuss, second-most behind voters who prefer the candidates discuss the economy, 36 percent. People are growing much more optimistic about how the war is going: 45 percent now, compared to 22 percent about a year ago. Voters' perceptions of the impact of the troop surge surely has helped -- 46 percent say it's making things better, compared to 17 percent about a year ago. Most of this is excellent news for McCain, who was a major backer of the surge.

--Domestic issues are blowing away foreign policy issues in the category of "what the candidates should focus on more." Only 8 percent picked foreign policy issues, compared to 77 percent for domestic. With the economy pinching people's wallets, that's only natural. But while most of the poll results on Iraq were good for McCain, the fact that people are so much less interested in Iraq and foreign policy issues in general favors Obama.

--That Obama overseas trip did not appear to do the trick, if one of the ideas was bolstering his own "commander in chief" credentials. His numbers actually went down there, compared to before the trip, but then, so did McCain's. Did McCain's negative ad campaign about the trip do damage to both Obama and himself?

--Economic growth in China and India isn't a rising tide that lifts all boats, according to those polled. Sixty-two percent said it was hurting the U.S. economy. Like I've written before, this plays to Obama's advantage because of his more skeptical view of free trade. China does better in the poll than I expected -- 64 percent of voters support President Bush going to the opening ceremony, something both McCain and Obama have said they would not have done as president. And 60 percent of voters say China is "friendly, but not an ally."

--No surprise that voters want more offshore drilling -- 64 percent of them. But the number of Democrats who support it is slightly surprising -- 49 percent. Obama and McCain have both shifted their positions to varying degrees in the last couple months toward more offshore drilling.

--A majority, 46 percent, believe U.S. support for Israel is about right, but that's down from a couple years ago, when it was 54 percent. Hard to say who that helps, if anyone.

Energy Week In The 2008 Campaign, Part II: The McCain Edition

In the spirit of equal time, I thought I'd devote a blog entry to John McCain's energy speech Tuesday after spending Monday on Obama's. Unlike Obama, though, McCain offered very little news. So let's review some past thoughts on McCain's energy plan, and touch on what news there is.

If Obama's position on offshore drilling -- from "no" to "if it's part of a bigger package" -- is a shift, then McCain's is a shift of an even greater degree -- from "no" to "yes, yes, yes." Marc Ambinder calls Obama's position more of a "gesture," really, aimed at future negotiations. That's a fair enough description. McCain, though, has undertaken a complete reversal.

Then there's McCain's call for increased use of nuclear power. As I've written before, this would probably take a rather monumental public relations campaign in the United States, of the kind France conducted. However, it may not, if one recent example is a broader indicator. There has been relatively little protest of a proposed new reactor in Maryland, which some have taken as a sign that rising energy costs may be warming the U.S. public to the idea of nuclear power. Of course, that doesn't mean safety risks won't rear their head amid a serious national push. McCain toured a nuclear facility Tuesday that once had a partial meltdown. And while McCain has boasted of the Navy's record with nuclear-powered submarines, the AP points out that "recent events somewhat undercut that message. Last week, the Navy announced that one of its nuclear-powered submarines, the USS Houston, had leaked minimally radioactive water into harbors since March as the sub traveled around the Pacific."

And most believe that McCain's proposals to suspend the gas tax and offer $300 million as an incentive to build breakthrough cars are totally backwards and useless, respectively.

If there was any development in today's energy feuding, it was McCain's comeback to Obama that McCain voted against a 2005 energy bill that contained tax breaks for oil companies that Obama supported. And that Obama has decided to greet McCain's mockery with some mockery of his own, stating strongly in response to GOP attacks on his suggestion that people properly inflate their tires, "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."

(P.S. Did anyone else find it amusing that McCain gave a speech on energy at that paeon to debaucherous energy consumption, the Sturgis motorcycle rally?)

It's Energy Week In The 2008 Campaign, Even As Things Get Silly

Set aside, if you can, the frivolous allegations of Republicans "playing the race card" (which came in for some mockery tonight on The Daily Show) or the frivolous personality-based attacks against the Democratic candidate (which came in for some mockery tonight on The Colbert Report). There's some serious talk from the candidates happening on energy... although with a side helping of silliness, of course.

Barack Obama on Monday outlined his energy plan. John McCain will outline his Tuesday. Because much of Obama's energy plan had been unveiled before, his proposal to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve got the bulk of the attention. CNNMoney.com, which has done an excellent job covering the substance of this campaign's policy proposals, goes in-depth on whether that would help gas prices, coming up with an answer that I can summarize as "basically, yes." Obama's call amounts to a shift, of sorts, as was his statement recently that he could tolerate some offshore drilling as part of a larger package.

As for the silliness: McCain continues to mock Obama for his factual, expert-endorsed suggestion that properly inflated tires could help reduce the impact on motorists' wallets. Porch Dog takes on McCain's war with accurate information here. One hopes voters are smart enough to see through this. Obama may have exaggerated the impact of properly inflated tires, as ABC's fact check discerned, but it is simply undeniable that it would help, and it is false to assert that the tire-inflation suggestion is the sum total of Obama's energy policy. If Republicans had focused on one part of what Obama had said -- specifically, the degree to which properly inflated tires would help -- they would be on safer ground.

The race, it seems, has crossed the line it showed the early promise of never doing -- that is, the point where attacks on the other candidate are dominating the headlines. Obama released his first attack ad against McCain on the energy front, after dealing with the first direct attack ads from McCain. At least Obama's ad keeps a little of the focus on issues over personality, but it looks like it only gets worse from here on out.

Bush Leaves Warm Relations With China For Obama Or McCain, Who Have Been Both Critical And Friendly

Bloomberg writes of the warm U.S.-China relationship that President Bush is leaving behind for his successor, be it John McCain or Barack Obama. It's a comprehensive piece, even if it fails to note that Bush has, at times, behaved contrarily to China's wishes, such as his meetings with the Dalai Lama or Chinese dissidents -- not the norm, certainly, but worth a "although Bush has occasionally..." kind of clause.

It's fair to say both Obama and McCain have been more critical of China, not that Bush wasn't early on himself. McCain's recent meeting with the Dalai Lama drew some anger from China, and Obama's supportive letter to the religious figure threw a little more fuel on the fire. Obama was quite critical of China on trade issues during the presidential primary, while McCain has advocated keeping China out of the G-8.

But both also have been friendly toward China at times. Even though McCain just made a confrontational gesture toward China himself by meeting with the Dalai Lama -- and even though McCain (and Obama) said he wouldn't have gone to the Olympics' opening ceremony in Beijing as president -- the GOP candidate recently urged Bush against being "confrontational" on his China trip. Last year, Obama, who has rejected McCain's viewpoint on China and the G-8, said: "In Asia, the emergence of an economically vibrant, more politically active China offers new opportunities for prosperity and cooperation, but also poses new challenges for the United States and our partners in the region."

Obama Finds Himself In A Pickle On Offshore Drilling

Barack Obama now says he can live with an increase in offshore drilling, if it's part of a broader energy legislation compromise. It's interesting that he says this is not "really a new position;" it certainly is, by my reading of the record. His other justification for it is far more defensible -- that is, a group of bipartisan senators have included offshore drilling as part of a bigger proposal, and it's better to have something than nothing: "If we've got a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set and there are some things in there that I don't like, then obviously that's something that I would consider because that's the nature of how we govern in a democracy."

Here, Obama could have learned something from John McCain, who, asked recently about why he had once voted against making Martin Luther King Day a holiday, simply explained it by saying: "I was wrong." He won applause before a black audience for saying so, which is surely as risky a group to have tried out that approach with as he could have found. Voters probably can live with "flip-flops" if candidates just fess up to them.

Of course, Obama was bound to get criticism on this point no matter what. McCain's camp, on the receiving end of a lot of "it's nice to see McCain now views things Obama's way" responses on his conflicting Iraq remarks, now has an opening to say the exact thing back to Obama. Which they have. And it feeds into another line of attack McCain's camp has been pushing, which is that Obama's not as genuine as he makes himself out to be and will say anything to get elected. Politically, just from the standpoint of the polls, Obama's shift might have been a smart move; the GOP has really been pressing the offshore drilling line with voters, given its apparent popularity amid soaring gas prices. But he probably helped McCain walk him into the second line of attack with the way he handled accusations he'd changed his position.

Bush, Obama And Condi Rice

Here's a piece I'm surprised the neoconservatives aren't flipping out about yet. They've been angry about what they've seen as State Department meddling with some of their favorite policies, like completely isolating Iran, that they see as undermining John McCain's presidential campaign. Now, Time magazine quotes a "senior State Department official" who says Foggy Bottom is indeed trying to "push things as far as they can go" with what Time calls "Bush's diplomacy surge." And get this: Condi Rice has been chatting with (gasp) Barack Obama.

Ultimately, it's not that surprising that the State Department would be pushing diplomacy. It's really not even that strange for Rice and Obama to have some talks, although the piece makes it sound like the two are friendly.

There's plenty of other good, new material in the article, as well as a run-down of all the Obama-like shifts of late from Bush, so I commend you to read it in full. It concludes on this interesting note: "No one expects Rice's diplomatic surge to work in every case--or even to produce visible results before the year's end--but the last-minute moves are already changing the landscape the next President will inherit... It may prove bittersweet to watch as a new President gets credit for policies she and Bush have promoted, but that is the price of embracing diplomacy so late in the game. At least, says the Obama aide, she can expect the phone calls to continue."

And here you thought Obama was a one-Rice candidate (senior foreign policy adviser Susan).

Free Trade In The 2008 Election Rears Its Head, But With An Unconventional "How" And "Where"

Over at the Wall Street Journal, trade advisers to the two presidential candidates are having a moderately interesting debate on free trade. You can read it here (h/t CFR). It offers a little of what Barack Obama did not on his overseas tour.

A few points of summary:
--On the recently collapsed WTO talks, there is relatively little disagreement between the advisers. The adviser to John McCain, Philip Levy, used McCain's opposition to the farm bill as a way to argue he'd be better equipped on the world stage to lead productive talks, since the U.S. farm bill isn't popular with other countries. The adviser to Obama, Daniel Tarullo, used the apparent domestic unpopularity of free trade against McCain, who's more pro-trade than Obama. The two differed only on whether talks should resume soon. Levy leaned no, Tarullo appeared to lean yes. Then, strangely, on a follow-up question, Tarullo deferred comment.
--On whether there's a connection between income inequality and the rise of free trade, both advisers said "maybe, maybe not," with Tarullo leaning "at least a little" and Levy leaning "probably not much." Then they talked about other things, like tax and education policy, that they argued were related to income inequality.
--Things got a little snippier on the what to do with NAFTA. Levy argued that barriers to trade needed to be lowered further, while Tarullo made the case for increasing labor and environmental standards under the agreement. Levy got a second rebuttal, for some reason, and used it to argue that Obama's position could lead to increased natural gas prices because Canada may reduce exports in that category, should NAFTA be reopened.

Given how much trade was at the forefront of the Democratic primary, it's remarkable that some of the most substantial discussion in the general election on globalization has come via an online debate on a newspaper blog between two non-candidates. Sure, trade is probably a bigger concern for unions that tend to support Democrats than it is for general election voters, and the polls don't show much benefit for McCain in highlighting his position, but it's a big issue that's getting short shrift.

Friction From Within On McCain's Foreign Policy?

An interesting undercurrent here: Even as John McCain looks like he's improving in the polls, he's been getting friction on foreign policy from influential conservatives. It's unclear what it means yet or if it's anything more than a coincidence of news events, but it's interesting to see the dissent. And it's coming from both directions, both the neocons and the realists.

Tuesday, John Bolton, who's as neocon as neocons get, rejected McCain's idea to eject Russia from the G-8, and was skeptical about McCain's proposal to form a League of Democracies.

For its part, the Weekly Standard, an influential conservative magazine, noted that the Bush administration is undermining McCain, particularly on foreign policy. But the piece blames the more diplomacy-oriented types at the State Department.

McCain And Obama, Now Basically On The Same Page About Afghanistan, May Be On The Wrong One Altogether

Just when it looked like the presidential candidates were getting along so swimmingly on the United States' two ongoing wars -- Barack Obama emphasizing McCain-like "conditions" and John McCain being comfortable with Obama's 16-month timetable for troop withdrawal on Iraq, and McCain moving toward Obama's position on more troops in Afghanistan -- comes this analysis that suggests both Obama and McCain are wrong about the elder of the two conflicts.

Some Final Thoughts On The Obama Foreign Trip

--Barack Obama tried to shift perceptions about what would constitute a successful trip by saying he wouldn't be surprised if he dropped in the polls while he was overseas. His argument was that he was out of town and therefore wasn't focused on domestic issues like gas prices. Some early returns suggest he got an overall bump, while others were not as promising. That said, if voters don't give Obama a bump in the "who's best suited to be commander in chief" category, and/or in the "who's better on foreign policy" then it will have to be viewed as at least a partial failure. Wasn't that the whole point?
--Even while Obama was away, he was getting plenty of coverage in big battleground states for his foreign trip, making the front page of many of the top papers in crucial capitals across the country, which Obama's campaign made sure to share with reporters. Many of them showed the sprawling, 200,000-strong crowd Obama drew in Germany.
--Regardless of how it shakes out in the polls, even top Republican advisers now agree that Obama's has had an awfully good stretch, by contrast to John McCain. The way Obama handled himself on the trip, plus the fortunate news Obama got from Nouri al-Maliki, plus some McCain missteps and sourpuss comments toward the press, all add up to a very nice week or two for Obama.
--If there was one thing McCain did to draw some favorable coverage while Obama was away (because the supermarket/sausage restaurant didn't get him much more than mockery), it was meeting with the Dalai Lama. The meeting still took a backseat to Obama's trip, and never mind that Obama's had his own meetings with the Dalai Lama. It was hinged to another news event, the Olympics, and while President Bush has also met with and praised the Dalai Lama, it did give McCain a chance to try to show some more daylight between himself and the incumbent, given that Bush is going to the Olympics despite the turmoil over Tibet. (The other way he got major attention: two attacks, one an advertisement and one a remark, both related to foreign policy but ultimately aimed at Obama's character. Hard to say that the coverage of those developments has been very positive, although that has rarely stopped attacks from working before.)
--Although the Obama trip put a huge spotlight on foreign policy in this campaign, a remarkable number of experts are noticing how much more this election is focusing, overall, on international affairs. A historical amount, even. The San Diego Union-Tribune quotes a slew of them here.

The Obama Foreign Trip Topic That Dares Not Rear Its Head: Trade

Given that Barack Obama has been visiting foreign lands where the U.S. attitude toward free trade is a major concern among European leaders, and given that Obama is campaigning in a U.S. presidential race where the economy is of foremost interest, it is still not terribly surprising that Obama has had little to say during his trip on the topic of international commerce. Consequently, perhaps, the issue vis-a-vis Obama's trip has received little coverage in the U.S. press. Obama's skeptical view of free trade is surely his least popular position among top European officials, and Obama bringing it up would have highlighted differences that could distract from some of the glossy photos. And, since this is the trip designed to burnish Obama's commander-in-chief credentials, a good portion of the trip -- including the European leg -- has been heavily focused on security issues.

Here, so far as I can discern, is all he's said, which he uttered at the Column speech: "Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all." It didn't come up at all in his press conference with Nicolas Sarkozy -- well, unless you count the Afghanistan narcotics trade. An Obama team press summary of Obama's meetings in Germany made only a passing mention of discussions with Angela Merkel on "broader economic challenges," but the bulk of the summary indicated the meetings were about NATO and the like.

Polls show free trade is not so popular in the United States. Many Americans think that it has not helped the economy. But European leaders and thinkers believe a U.S. backslide on trade would be bad for their continent. This New York Times piece, one of the few to tackle the Obama/Europe trade divide, notes that "Europe’s trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, last month urged both Mr. Obama and his Republican rival, Senator John McCain, to reject 'the false comforts of populism' and abandon 'the protectionist and antitrade rhetoric' that dominated the primaries." Mandelson went on: “A crisis of American confidence in globalization could knock it off course.” The piece also notes European anger at U.S. farm subsidies and renewed bidding on a refueling tanker contract originally won by a European-led consortium. In the long run, Obama's position on free trade could affect an impasse in WTO talks.

So while John McCain's more welcoming attitude toward free trade might not do him favors in the U.S., and while George Bush's policies in general are wildly unpopular, this is one of the few areas where the GOP president and his party's 2008 candidate are more in tune with Europe than Obama. "When it comes to trade, Obama could actually be less helpful for Europeans than McCain because I am sure that a President Obama with a Democratic Congress would be pushed to be more protectionist, while McCain would be more keen on promoting open borders and the free market than Obama," said Francois Lafond, director of the Paris office of the German Marshall Fund, speaking about WTO talks. "This is a tricky thing for Europeans as they are backing Obama to a certain degree. But indeed it could become more difficult for the Europeans to get an agreement if the Democrats returned to the White House, because public opinion will be pushing towards more protectionism, meaning that Americans will be more selective on what products should be allowed access to their market."

One more day to go on a trip that largely has the looks of a resounding success. Let's see if the leaders or press in London force Obama to talk more about free trade.

Obama Seeks Help On Afghanistan From Europe, But To What End?

What's wrong with Barack Obama asking Europe for more help on Afghanistan, on its face an act of political daring?

Maybe it will be more effective than President Bush's "swaggering unilateralism," but there may not be much more Europe can do, even if it wants to. Which it doesn't, really.

The Obama World Tour Looks A Lot Less "Risky" Right Now

For all the warnings from the media about how "risky" Barack Obama's world tour would be -- and I was one of the people who issued such a warning very early on -- so far, it's hard to imagine how it could have gone better for him. There's more yet to go, and the ultimate effect of it probably will not be determined until polls afterwards. But let's take a look at what Obama's gotten out of it so far.

Separate from, but surely deliberately timed to, Obama's trip, is the now quite indisputable fact that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is more aligned with Obama on a U.S. troop pullout than his Republican opponent, John McCain. There can be no more denials or ambiguities on this, thanks to third party translations of Maliki's original remarks and subsequent comments by a spokesman that point to substantial agreement with Obama. He's gotten good news in other ways, too, such as Great Britain's own plans for Iraq. He's gotten tons of images of himself looking presidential, one of the areas where he's lagged behind McCain in the polls, by meeting with foreign leaders. He's getting more glowing press than ever, perhaps more than he will ever get, which is saying something. As Obama's jump shot with the troops has made evening news rundowns, McCain has been left, somewhat pitifully, complaining about the lack of news coverage, being greeted by crickets in Maine and despite his own history of receiving glowing press, just generally being left in the dust in this category. Meanwhile, McCain's gotten attention primarily for increasing press notice of his own, foreign policy-related gaffes.

That's not to say Obama's trip has gone perfectly. His uncertain response in a television interview about the apparently successful troop surge that he opposed but McCain backed shows that this particular issue continues to be an advantage for the Republican and a weak point for the Democrat. There are grumblings that maybe he's been a little too concerned with appearing presidential, prematurely, something that plays into the perception of some voters that Obama is arrogant (whether it's accurate or not, this perception could be damaging -- on my last visit to my hometown in Indiana, more than a few relatives who tend to vote Democratic but only follow politics casually and vote said they were having a hard time embracing him for this very reason). Obama's done as well as he can explaining away his apparent shifts on Israel, but they still count as stumbles.

Add it all up, though. When you combine the successes and failures of the trip to this point, can anyone say Obama has done more harm than good to his presidential bid with the trip? Coming soon is the Europe wing. There are plenty of subjects he can discuss there.

Maliki Wanted To "Squeeze" Bush, The Administration Wanted A "Clarification"

Ask and ye shall receive. Earlier Sunday, I questioned Nouri al-Maliki's motive in both praising Barack Obama's 16 month timeline for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq and in offering a quasi-retraction. Later Sunday, the Associated Press answered the first and The Washington Post answered the second.

According to the AP, Maliki's interest wasn't in influencing the U.S. election, but, rather, using the U.S. election to influence the Bush administration's commitment to removing troops. "Let's squeeze them," Maliki reportedly told advisers. The maneuver came with a side of electoral politics, the AP reported.

Why the semi-retraction? According to the Post, which quoted a White House press secretary, that move came after the Bush administration called Maliki's office "to express concern and seek clarification of the remarks."

It's still unclear if Maliki has any sense of how much impact his comments might have had on the U.S. election, or how much pressure the Bush administration put on Maliki's office. But since I raised the questions, I felt obligated to report back after they were essentially resolved, assuming the reporting is accurate.

What's Maliki's Motive For His Series Of Comments On Obama's 16 Months?

Nouri al-Maliki's possibly game-changing comments to Der Spiegel endorsing Barack Obama's timeline for a pullout of U.S. troops, and his subsequent unclear "retraction," raise questions about what exactly he is trying to do.

An unnamed Republican adviser said Maliki must be playing domestic politics. But as Ben Smith points out, why would he do it in Der Spiegel? It looks more like Maliki was trying to influence the U.S. election. But the same question follows: Why would Maliki try to influence the U.S. election via Der Spiegel? Perhaps he knew that with Obama's trip to Iraq near, media scrutiny would be at a high and as such the actual outlet he made his comments to wouldn't matter much because they inevitably would be picked up far and wide?

This could still very well be about both, despite the choice of outlet. Most believe Maliki's recent announcement that he supports a timetable for troop withdrawal was tied to his effort to get reelected. And Maliki, were he to try to influence the election Obama's way, would end up with a U.S. president more likely to follow through on the actual troop withdrawal, so it would have a practical effect, too.

Besides Maliki's peculiar decision to make his remarks about Obama in Der Spiegel instead of another publication, there are other reasons to question what, exactly, Maliki was trying to do. Why, if Maliki was trying to make a splash with his comments, did he offer a semi-retraction? And through Centcom? Did he regret his foray into U.S. politics? Did he genuinely believe his marks were mistranslated, and if so, why didn't he make a more specific retraction? Was he pressured by the Bush administration into the retraction he offered, or was he trying to give lip service to the Bush team that he still has to deal with until January? Does he realize that some of the impact of his remarks will have already sunken in by now, regardless of what he's said since? (Several objective observers have concluded that Maliki's remarks are a huge help to Obama, even with the semi-retraction.)

As U.S. Agrees To Iraq "Time Horizons," Both McCain And Obama See Validation

At first glance, the agreement Friday between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government to set "time horizons" for a withdrawal of U.S. troops steers American policy toward that of Democrat Barack Obama. But the campaign of John McCain has done as much as it can to steer the development to the Republican's favor.

It was Obama, not Bush or McCain, who wanted a timetable for troop withdrawal, a notion also recently backed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The "time horizon" agreement is less firm, but certainly more like the Obama/al-Maliki position than the GOP had previously taken. In that regard, the agreement has strong elements of a win for Obama.

On the other hand, after an initially muddled response to al-Maliki's call for timetables, the McCain campaign has found a line of attack that at least is somewhat credible. That is: None of this would have been possible without the success of the troop surge that McCain backed and Obama opposed. It's a point of sensitivity for the Obama camp, as the removal from his website of previous, unflattering remarks about the surge indicate.

That al-Maliki never, to my knowledge, mentioned the surge's success as a reason he wanted a timetable -- press accounts show him mentioning a desire for full Iraqi sovereignty and resistance to administration demands on a status of force agreement, plus there is some speculated re-election pressure -- doesn't help the McCain camp's argument. But perhaps a different security situation would not have led al-Maliki to place less of an emphasis on full Iraqi sovereignty, etc. At any rate, it's better than what McCain's camp had been saying, or an advertisement that the Boston Globe somewhat debunked, or criticizing Obama's Iraq trip -- a trip that McCain pushed.

McCain And Obama Both Need The Rest Of The World To Help Accomplish Their Foreign Policy Goals

A couple nights ago on "The Daily Show," a British journalist called attention to the fact that the U.S. media had not spent much time talking about the candidates' views on the oppression of opposition by Zimbabwe's ruling government. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have, in fact, reacted to what has happened in Zimbabwe, but both of their positions are so dependent on the actions of other countries as to point to another issue all together: On some of the top foreign policy issues for the United States, or on foreign policy challenges where the United States could play a role, the actions of other countries are just as important and often more.

Take Zimbabwe. Both candidates have called for some form of international pressure. But last week, U.N. Security Council actions to implement an arms embargo, travel restrictions and so forth were vetoed by China and Russia. Or Darfur. There, China's veto on the Security Council has proven crucial to ending the humanitarian crisis.

Even many of the specific foreign policy plans of the two candidates are heavily reliant upon other countries. Obama, as Michael has written for this blog, may soon be calling on Europe for more assistance with situations like the war in Afghanistan. It even applies on the macro level. The New York Sun editorial linked here about McCain and Zimbabwe hails his "League of Democracies" as a solution to the problems with the U.N., but what if McCain forms a League of Democracies and no one joins?

McCain Has A Bad Week On National Security And Foreign Policy

The whole “horse race” element of politics is usually pretty shallow stuff, but it’s relevant here: It’s hard to imagine how John McCain could be having a worse week or so on national security, a week that comes just as Barack Obama has been stepping up a multi-faceted effort to prove his own competence on the issue. Since much of McCain’s presidential hopes are predicated on his national security strength, that is not a welcome development for him.

The latest news, on Wednesday, is that the Bush administration is authorizing what the International Herald Tribune called “the most significant U.S. diplomatic contact with Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.” Added the Herald Tribune: “the decision appeared to bend, if not exactly break, the administration’s insistence that it would not negotiate with Iran over its nuclear programs unless it first suspended uranium enrichment.” Barack Obama, who has encouraged such meetings, hailed the development as a plus for his policy. McCain, who had encouraged isolating Iran, was left reacting by saying it was a rejection of the “unilateral” meetings Obama supported. More than one journalist concluded that this was advantage: Obama.

On Tuesday, McCain made some ambiguous statements on his Afghanistan plan that opened him up to charges of flip-flopping in a way that ends up making him look like he has come to think of things the way Obama has on troops levels.

Also on Tuesday, McCain again made a reference to Czechoslovakia as if it still existed, at least the fourth occasion he has done so in this campaign. It’s a gaffe, so it is far less important than any of the other developments, but McCain’s had his share of foreign policy slip-ups, something that doesn’t exactly speak well of his expertise in that regard.

And early last week, of course, McCain was confronted with the news that the Iraqi prime minister was calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops – which Obama favors but McCain does not – which McCain first greeted with skepticism, then silence, then a continuation of his own policy.

Meanwhile, Obama conducted a CNN interview with foreign policy expert Fareed Zakaria Sunday and appeared at ease with the subject. He released advertisements that highlights his national security views in states where such a move could be valuable. He penned an op-ed in the New York Times Monday which further clarified his Iraq position, in case there was any lingering doubt on that. And on Tuesday he delivered a wide-ranging foreign policy speech that the AP deemed his “most ambitious… to date,” where he again gave no major cannon fodder to opponents. All of this comes in advance of his trip next week to Europe and the Middle East, where, Brandenburg Gate controversy aside, he will probably be well-received and stands to make up even more ground on foreign policy and national security.

Despite all this, there is good news for McCain. First off, it’s just one week so far – it doesn’t yet have the look of the kind of week from which he cannot recover. Part of the reason he can recover is that he still was viewed by voters before any of this as the one with the edge in foreign policy, and, despite hostility from voters on the Iraq War, his plan for the country was running neck-and-neck with Obama’s. There are still areas where McCain can attack Obama, such as on his opposition to the Iraq troop surge (although that attack will be met with an answer that McCain showed bad judgment himself by supporting the war at its onset) and Obama’s absence on foreign policy issues as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations panel.

And McCain’s remarks, shifts and other problems haven’t caught fire in the media. McCain’s warm relationship with the press has long annoyed his opponents, who see favoritism in the coverage. None other than George Bush himself was irritated when, in 2000, McCain got away with referring to Czechoslovakia: “I don’t think there is any plot; I hope there isn’t,” Bush said. “But it’s an amazing phenomenon, I’ll tell you that. It’s like the flap over the foreign-leader deal. A guy gets up and quizzes me — it’s my fault for trying to answer — but John McCain says something about the ‘ambassador to Czechoslovakia.’ Well, I know there is no Czechoslovakia (there’s a Czech Republic and a Slovakia), but yet it didn’t make the nightly national news. I’m not going to gripe about it, but the media question is starting to pop up.”

On Immigration, The Candidates Are Similar, Their Charges Are Accurate And The Political Stakes Are High

Credit where credit is due: There's been some sharp political reporting over the past couple days on the similarity between the presidential candidates' immigration stances, where the candidates have been right and wrong in their claims about their mutual records and why they're fighting over all of it. Given the poor job so many outlets did of reporting on Barack Obama's alleged (and non-existent) flip-flop on Iraq, it's encouraging to see.

This Newsweek blog does all of the above, but this ABC blog and this LA Times piece pick up some of the major components. The first: Obama and John McCain have substantially similar positions on immigration -- securing the borders, pathway to citizenship, etc. The only difference is that McCain may or may not want to do this in two separate pieces -- border security first, the rest second. It may seem a tiny difference, but it is not an inconsequential one. Many believe that in order to get something that the entire Senate can support, the two must be joined. That leads into the points about both men's records.

The Obama charge against McCain is that he abandoned the "corageous stance" McCain himself speaks of by backing away from the comprehensive legislation he helped put together with liberal icon Ted Kennedy. Obama's charge is on target. It's actually possible to find three distinct and different shifts in McCain's immigration record over the past couple years, although some are only of emphasis, and that's not including some alleged flip-flops. And McCain on Tuesday appeared to fuzz up whether he wants to do two bills or one. McCain counter-charges that Obama voted for several amendments to that bill which could have upset the delicate balance of the legislation, amendments that would ruin its support. McCain's charge is on target, too. Obama said he was just trying to make the bill better, but the fact remains that he voted for amendments that also would have made the bill fail.

Lastly, that aforementioned Newsweek entry has a run-down on the political stakes. That is, immigration is a big issue for many Hispanic voters, and Hispanic voters could help decide the race in several states, thereby helping decide the race itself. McCain, per Newsweek's statistics, has a long way to go. He's worse off than Bush was in 2004 and Obama's better off already than John Kerry was in 2008. Making matters more of an uphill climb for McCain is that his support among diehard conservatives is less than that of Bush's, so if he wants to keep them happy, he can't stray too far from conservative orthodoxy on immigration.

Of note, however, is that McCain's Latin America trip was extremely well-received by the Hispanic audience who heard his speech Monday. That audience may or may not be representative of Hispanics as a whole, but it's definitely a good sign for McCain that every time he mentioned the trip, it was an applause line. I had asked before whether McCain's Latin America trip was a waste of time; based on today's results, it no longer looks like it was useless, anyway. If this opens me to charges of flip-flopping, I accept those charges. What can I say? The facts on the ground changed.

The International Affairs-Related Comedy Of The 2008 Campaign

Let's lighten the mood around here with some campaign trail foreign policy comedy...

--Wired's Danger Room, as well as Boing Boing, have been having a grand old time collecting others' photoshop takes on the recent Iran photoshopping job on its missile tests, an issue that prompted some exchanges between Barack Obama and John McCain. I'm partial to the Wile E. Coyote one. (H/t Foreign Policy's Passport blog)
--McCain has pushed the comedy envelope on foreign policy issues himself, in a way that actually may have an impact on U.S. relations with the rest of the world. Like the joking he does about killing people in Iran. More than once. Or like the quip that might tick off Belarus. (Hillary Clinton had a few moments herself in the awkward foreign policy comedy arena, before Obama bested her for the primary nod.)
--I delved a couple times into the whole inaccurate charge that Obama was born a Muslim and that would impact how he's received in the Middle East. My take wasn't funny. Things More Muslim Than Obama is.
--The Onion, a satirical newspaper, has a campaign section on its website, and aside from the stream of headlines ("McCain Vows To Withdraw All Troops From The U.S."), there are also candidate profiles that mock their respective foreign policy stances. Ex. on Obama: "Guarantees improved relations with Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii, and Illinois."
--Regular sources of international affairs-related campaign comedy can be found at Wonkette and on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. The Daily Show even has an Indecision 2008 blog where they collect the foreign policy stuff, and a clips link.

Sometimes, satire and other forms of comedy tell the story better than straight news.

Friday Night Foreign Policy Fact Check

We've been doing our own fact-checking here, and I've encouraged readers to use the links in our blogroll to double up, but here's the best of recent foreign policy-related fact checking elsewhere, focusing on the claims that were most faulty:

--I said Barack Obama didn't flip-flop on his Iraq stance; much of the mainstream media bought the flip-flopping charge hook, line and sinker. Politifact agreed with me.
--The Democratic National Committee alleges John McCain has been inconsistent on when to bring Iraq troops home. I said he's been about the same as Obama, consistency-wise, but with some problems here and there. Politifact found that the DNC was mostly wrong.
--McCain said Iran, "in the view of every objective observer," is pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Politifact says not so much.
--Politifact says Obama's being misleading when he claims McCain would "give more tax breaks to big oil." It just so happens that McCain's also been wrong about part of his own economic policy -- Factcheck.org says he's been using bad numbers about the benefits of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement.
--McCain's waaaaay off-base when he says a handful of things about Obama's energy policy, according to Politifact. Factcheck.org also rules the Republican National Committee's attacks on Obama's energy proposals are out there.

Candidates sometimes don't tell the truth! Gasp. Happy Friday night.

(My sarcasm is flippant; really, one of the best things a journalist [or blogger, or just the media generally] can do is sort out the facts for the people to decide, which is why I make a stab at it as often as I do. And it's why any concerned voter should be checking in at Politifact, Factcheck.org and some of the other fact-checking operations of newspapers as often as possible.)

Both Candidates' Strange Plan For "Savings" From The Iraq War Paying For Other Things

I thought this was a great find from the team over at the Foreign Policy Passport blog: the notion that John McCain would some how use money from the conclusion of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are paid for by borrowing, to reduce the deficit. As it happens, Barack Obama has the same notion of using savings from the conclusion of the Iraq War to spend on other things. It sounded, on the surface, like it was an impossible notion.

That's what federal budget experts have concluded, too: "Washington is charging the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to its national credit card. So far, the government has spent between $700 billion and $800 billion since 2001. Simply deciding to spend less money the government doesn't have will not free up real money to pay down the current deficit or help pay for new endeavors." Added Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: "They kind of create money out of thin air."

Read the whole contents of the link for what McCain and Obama's advisers had to say in defense of this notion, and how even then the two campaigns are on shaky ground. And then go back to Passport, where Blake Hounshell wonders appropriately about how McCain can even count on the conclusion of the war in Afghanistan any time soon -- "Imagine telling your mortgage lender: 'My plan to pay off this debt in four years is to get a new job that pays me a million dollars a year.' Sure, it could happen. But I doubt the bank would be impressed by the proposal."

Weak Explanations For Obama's Non-Flip-Flop On FISA

This will probably be my last refereeing of who's flip-flopping or not for a while, because you could be at it all day every week in this campaign lately... but the Barack Obama campaign has been making some effort to act like he hasn't shifted his stance on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) legislation that the Senate voted to send to President Bush for a signature Wednesday, and their explanations deserve a response.

There are two explanations, both faulty. One is that this bill is different than the one he pledged to filibuster. Here's what's wrong with that: He vowed to filibuster ANY bill that included retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies that allegedly assisted President Bush's warrantless surveillance program. There is no one who has argued credibly that this bill is likely to result in anything but retroactive legal immunity.

The second explanation offered by the Obama camp is that he voted in favor of amendments to remove retroactive legal immunity from the bill, therefore his position is consistent. Here's what's wrong with that: He vowed to filibuster ANY bill that included retroactive legal immunity, and this one effectively does. So while his opposition to retroactive immunity is consistent, his position is not. If he was committed to blocking any bill that includes retroactive immunity, though, why did he support this one? He may oppose retroactive immunity, but he no longer opposes any bill that includes it. What's more, Obama had a chance to vote to continue debate -- that is, filibuster -- and on Wednesday he voted against continuing debate.

It amounts to a pretty obvious shift from Obama's previous stance. And it may be that he has good reasons for revoking that stance; it's not for me to decide. This piece runs through some of them, and includes some previously unrevealed details about some of the advice Obama received. But when Obama chides the media and others for saying he has shifted to the center, he should leave FISA off the list of things on which he hasn't changed positions.

A "McCain Flip-Flops On Iraq" Story Should Be Forthcoming, Yes?

I've spent some time here delving into whether Barack Obama flip-flopped on Iraq, concluding that he did not; now, today, comes a maneuver similar to Obama's from John McCain, so let's see whether he's subjected to the same charges.

The impetus for McCain's situation is Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki's call for a memorandum of understanding about a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of his country. McCain has spoken at least as adamantly about the foolishness of timetables as Obama has about their wisdom. Probably more so. Obama did indeed reserve the right, all along, to change his plan based on conditions in Iraq. A McCain adviser on Wednesday cited similar "facts on the ground" caveats to McCain's anti-timetable stance. McCain, as demonstrated here, has indeed built some flexibility into his Iraq stance. (It's fair to say that judging by the McCain campaign's relative silence on the point that al-Maliki's pronouncement caught them off guard. In a race where some of the momentum on the Iraq issue appeared to be shifting to McCain's advantage, more than just McCain's team failed to take into account that the Iraq War could take a turn against the Republican.)

If there's a difference -- besides one of tone -- in the situations Obama and McCain have found themselves in on Iraq in recent weeks, it's that McCain has been less clear than Obama on what he intends to do next. After all the confusion, Obama settled on what amounted to a clarification of his position: I very much intend to end the Iraq War, but that intention could change based on conditions in the country and the advice of military leaders. Per the Post: "On Tuesday, McCain's campaign declined to respond directly to the question of whether he now supports the idea of setting a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country." Making matters more difficult, McCain years ago said that if a sovereign Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, then it's "obvious" troops would have to be removed.

It may be hard to level the charge of flip-flopping at someone who won't respond about the nature of his current position. But stopping short of that: Obama said he supports a timetable, but might not depending on the facts on the ground; McCain said he opposes a timetable, but an adviser hinted he might not depending on the facts on the ground. The coming days will determine whether political reporters apply the same standard to McCain as they do Obama on this issue -- and whether they press McCain to clarify what his position is.

Day Two Of Uninformed Coverage Of Obama's Iraq "Shift"

There's some snarkiness out there today toward Barack Obama from reporters after he chided them for their coverage of his recent statements on Iraq. We reporters, like all humans, do sometimes bristle at criticism, but everyone who erroneously reported that Obama had somehow changed his position ought to just go ahead and swallow this medicine.

Obama simply did not change his position, as some reported he did. A little basic research is all it takes to learn that. Obama, as far back as September of 2007, refused to commit to fully pulling out troops before 2013. That's more than 16 months, the timespan he frequently cites for ending the Iraq War. No, he has not often emphasized his "facts on the ground" argument, but it's always been there.

When Obama said today, "I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured," he was wrong in his characterization of the media's calibration. It was quite poorly calibrated, in fact.

The New York Times piece linked above suggested that somehow Obama was doing a flip-flop within a flip-flop by changing his story from "I wasn't clear enough" in Thursday's second press conference to "you didn't hear me right." To me, this reads more like the kind of thing anyone says in an argument; being charitable to the other party, one might start by saying, "Perhaps I should have said it better," but when the message still doesn't get through, charity goes out the window and things shift to "You should listen better."

Obama might have felt compelled to bring the subject up again because of pieces like this, which delve into whether he's on the verge of getting saddled with a flip-flopper label.

Writes the AP in another bit of strange reporting: "His problem is that his change in emphasis to flexibility from a hard-nosed end-the-war stance — including his recent position that withdrawing combat troops could take as long as 16 months — will now be heard loud and clear by an anti-war camp that may have ignored it before. So he could face a double-whammy in their feelings of betrayal and other voters' belief in the Republican charge that he is craven." It's hard to understand why any reporter would postulate that. A very casual scan of some of the most liberal blogs -- home of the most strident anti-war positions on the left -- shows that, in fact, it is only the media that has drawn their scorn, not Obama. And as TPM pointed out, the 16-month timeline is not "recent," either.

In my day job at Congressional Quarterly, I report on policy first, politics second. But here, at Across the Pond, I'm a political reporter first and foremost. And incidents like the recent spate of reporting and "analysis" on Obama's Iraq stance give dishonor to that profession.

McCain's Risky Latin America Trip

The Republican presidential candidate just completed a trip through Latin America that had The Washington Post asking, "Why is John McCain in Colombia?" McCain has his own answer, but some saw the trip as a risky gambit.

McCain, as I wrote recently, is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to emphasizing his foreign policy strengths or the economy, on which he is weaker but that voters care more about right now. On that count, this trip could further enhance his foreign policy experience, but the Post notes: "McCain could not have made this trip because he needs to burnish his foreign policy credentials," because he already has the advantage there. Barack Obama's planned overseas visit is certainly for that reason.

In many areas of Latin American policy, the two men are alike. Could the trip be about trade? Perhaps, but in that regard, the U.S. public is very divided about free trade agreements. Could the trip be about immigration? Maybe, but McCain's stance against an immigration bill he once helped negotiate has put him in a strange position, caught between Hispanic voters and those on the anti-immigration right. And while many have interpreted the trip as an attempt by McCain to curry favor with Hispanic voters, that very immigration position has probably cost him -- at least compared to Obama, whose views are closer to those McCain once held that were more forgiving of illegal immigrants in the country now.

That leaves appeal to Catholics as a highlight of the trip, as the Times suggests, since McCain spent some time with the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mexico City. That's a significant voter group, but could McCain have won them over without a visit to Latin America? It could just be that this whole thing is a leftover from the perception that McCain's campaign is wobbly and still finding its legs -- which, given the campaign shakeup of late, is not the most implausible reason for the visit at all.

No Major Change In Obama's Iraq Policy, Despite Flurry Of Coverage

It's not as if there isn't serious ammunition for anyone who wants to claim Barack Obama has shifted his positions on some issues of late, or (gasp!) flip-flopped. But Friday's confusion -- in the press, in the blogosphere -- over whether Obama has changed his stance on pulling troops out of Iraq isn't that ammunition.

If someone thought that Obama had put in place some kind of absolute plan for all troops to be removed within 16 months, they could hardly be blamed. Obama himself has made it sound like that's his stance. But that position has always come with caveats, caveats that were common to all the Democratic presidential candidates. None of them, in a September debate, would promise to withdraw troops by 2013. Why not? For the very same reason Obama wouldn't Friday: “I have always reserved the right to do what’s best for America’s national interest… I would be a poor commander-in-chief if I didn’t take facts on the ground into account.”

What's new here, if anything, is the emphasis. By signaling he was open to the possibility he might "refine" his Iraq plan, he called attention to something that he had not much called attention to before. That he would do so may or may not be worthy of criticism, but it is that shift, not the imagined one, that should get it.

Whether Obama Or McCain Will Change The U.S. Posture Toward The World

These things keep coming in twos: A pair of articles out today argue that the next president won't undo President Bush's foreign policy. One, here, focused exclusively on Barack Obama. The other, here, expands to both candidates.

What say you, reader.... are they wrong?

Obama Keeping Robert Gates As Defense Secretary Has Plenty Going For It

With the idea of Barack Obama keeping on Robert Gates as Defense secretary floating around for weeks, I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. Instead, the objections from liberal thinkers continue to be rather tepid.

Backers of the notion of keeping Gates aboard observe that he may work in a Republican administration, but he and Obama have a great deal in common. They have considerable overlap in their view of Iraq, and around the same time President Bush was hinting that Obama was an "appeaser" for being willing to talk with Iran, Gates was advocating talks with Iran. Although Gates was also a critic of the Iraq War and as a member of the Iraq Study Group called for the eventual removal of troops in a fashion similar to the one Obama has supported, he is thought by most to being about as good a job managing a difficult war as one can. A top Obama foreign policy adviser has openly suggested Gates would be a good fit in a Democratic administration. Gates has long been as popular as Republicans get with Democrats, and in his biography, he had tons of praise for the foreign policy of President Jimmy Carter. If Obama wants to pick a Republican to serve in his administration and have a bipartisan cabinet, Gates is as suitable a candidate as remains with the Bush team.

A number of moderate Democrats like Time's Joe Klein or this writer for the New Republic are warm to keeping Gates for all those reasons. They don't, though, often reflect the views of the broader party. So where are the critics of keeping Gates? Matthew Yglesias writes that the major problem with keeping Gates is that, well, he's a Republican: "It's desperately important for the Democratic Party's leaders to avoid re-enforcing the idea that Democrats can't run national security." The explanation of his objection is not exactly vociferous. Likewise, you'd think an article in the liberal magazine The Nation entitled "Gates to Join Obama? Uh-Oh" would have more negative to say. Instead, the author practically makes the case for Obama keeping Gates.

Really, with some party moderates high on keeping Gates, with a key Obama adviser speaking well of him and only mild objections from the left, there's much to making the idea a reality. The biggest problem may be Gates himself. Per the L.A. Times: "When asked at a recent news conference if he would stay on after the end of the Bush administration, he replied: 'The circumstances under which I would do that are inconceivable to me.' Gates frequently mentions a clock he carries to count down the minutes until he can return home to his manse on a lake outside Seattle."

McCain's Dilemma: Whether To Talk About National Security Or The Economy

In my last post, I wrote about whether John McCain or Barack Obama has the advantage on foreign policy in the 2008 presidential campaign, with McCain being thought of as having the upper hand by most but with some challenging that; as it happens, a lot of influential Republicans would prefer that McCain not emphasize his national security experience so much in a year when the economy is foremost on voters' minds.

The L.A. Times writes: "Even more puzzling to observers is McCain's emphasis on national security and foreign affairs -- Saturday he met with the leaders of Iraq and the Philippines -- at a time when domestic matters have surged to the fore of voter concerns." Some of those observers, in fact, include two of the top campaign officials for President Bush and John Kerry in 2004. "You can't shoehorn in an issue the American people aren't focused on every day at their kitchen table," Matthew Dowd, who ran Bush's campaign, told the Times.

The problem, of course, is that national security is one area where the polls, at least, suggest McCain might have an edge. On the economy, Obama holds an edge.

What McCain has done in a few recent instances may be the blueprint for merging the two, with his foreign policy experience rubbing off on some domestic issues. Energy, immigration and trade all have foreign policy elements, and he's focused his attention on all three of late. What's problematic for McCain, though, is that in all three of those cases, he holds positions that divide either his Republican base or moderates who will be key to his chances or both.

When the economy's gone south, the president's party always suffers in an election year. Maybe McCain could benefit from focusing on the economy a little more than he has, but McCain's between a rock and a hard place here. He may just have to pick the national security hard place and stick to it. As pollster Floyd Ciruli tells the times: "If people are voting on economics, they're going to vote Democratic... To win, Republicans have to focus this election on national security."

The Foreign Policy Advantage: McCain Or Obama?

Two pieces Friday -- here and here -- conclude that Barack Obama, not John McCain, might have the advantage on foreign policy. It's an interesting idea. I wonder if the Obama campaign has the same confidence?

The arguments for Obama have floated around all campaign long, but sometimes good journalism is about putting the case all in one place. The case is as follows: The public is unhappy with the Iraq War. Advantage, Obama. The idea of war with Iran is unpalatable. Advantage, Obama. In other areas, it's something of a wash. The public is tired of all things Bush administration, so any continuation of his policies comes with a taint; and yet, the public trusts McCain more on terrorism than it does Obama. Obama may criticize hawkish policies, but he has enough of his own to make it hard to paint him as one dimensional; his position on Afghanistan, for instance, is more hawkish than McCain's. And making matters more difficult for McCain is an apparent philosophical divide within his camp. In the Reuters piece, an anonymous campaign aide even says that McCain no longer stands behind his controversial position that Russia should be kicked out of the G-8, one of the most hawkish positions he holds. It no longer "reflects where he is right now," the aide said.

Then there's the advantage of this being 2008. Per the final paragraph of the Free Press piece: "'The reason Obama has a decent chance of winning the foreign policy debate is Americans are not nearly as scared today as they have been at other moments,' said Peter Beinart, a foreign policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'That had a lot of resonance in 2002 and 2004. It has less resonance today.'"

That's what makes Obama's moves to the center on foreign policy of late all the more fascinating. There's been a huge divide of late among big-name liberal thinkers in particular about Obama's reversal on an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Obama has said he supports the new bill, also backed by the Bush administration. MSNBC personality Keith Olbermann praised Obama for supporting the bill, saying it proves he will stand up to his party's liberal wing" "Seriously, there is little in the polls to suggest McCain has anything to run with other than terror . . . . So why hand them a brick to hit him with -- Obama Voted Against FISA -- if voting Aye enhances his chances of getting himself his own Attorney General to prosecute FISA." Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald counter-argues: "That's the behavior which Obama has repeatedly vowed to reject, and it's that precise mentality that has to be extinguished, not perpetuated."

It's impossible to say whether Obama's shift on FISA comes from a sincere change of heart or a political one. But his trend of moving to the center on foreign policy once the primary ended does hint at the possibility that the Obama campaign may have doubts that his positions are the politically stronger ones.

While McCain And Obama Fight Over Nuclear Power, France Relaxes And Enjoys It

France is usually a dirty word on the U.S. campaign trail, but does America's frenemy offer any lessons for the two presidential candidates on a subject over which the two have been feuding this week? John McCain sees nuclear power plants as a path to energy independence and clean air. Barack Obama sees potential in it, but worries about safety and how to dispose of nuclear waste. France, meanwhile, as the country most reliant on nuclear power, likes where it gets its electricity for all the reasons McCain is touting the atom, and doesn't fret about the things Obama does.

America gets something like 20 percent of its energy from nuclear plants, compared to nearly all of it in France. This excellent series extensively documents the effort in the U.S. to steer U.S. energy policy toward nuclear power. It's got a little momentum, and would get some more under McCain, who wants to construct 45 more reactors by 2030; Obama has aptly been described as "lukewarm" about it. But the problems with popularizing nuclear energy here have been many-fold. Some of them are fairly unique to the U.S., like the political winds against storage of nuclear waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain taking a strong turn in 2007, when Harry Reid, D-Nev., became the Senate Majority Leader, a position from which he can exert considerable influence. The U.S. experience with Three Mile Island has no comparison in France, and while anti-nuclear activists exist in both countries, they appear to have been more successful pleading their case in America.

This PBS piece explains that France has its own unique cultural reasons for embracing nuclear power, including a stronger-than-usual desire to be independent of the Middle East (or anyone else) and an affinity for large technology projects. In some ways, America has both, too. But perhaps the biggest difference is that the federal government has relentlessly sold the French public on the value of nuclear power. Wrote the PBS producer of his tour through Civaux, cite of a nuclear plant under construction: "The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear."

The most remarkable aspect of this is that France overcame resistance to storage of nuclear waste. How did the government do this? By convincing the populace that waste wouldn't be permanently buried and stored -- it would be "stocked," the major difference being that the latter emphasizes the waste would be detoxified later down the road. Tied into the plan was a commitment for scientists to work on that problem.

Could something like that work in the U.S.? Perhaps, but it would take a monumental public relations campaign like France's, or bigger. The policy approach would be a difficult sell. France's policy is, in essence, "Let's keep enjoying the fruits of nuclear power, and worry about this whole nuclear waste thing another day." You could argue that's America's energy policy, too, but with oil. The difference is that nuclear power is not as ingrained to the American lifestyle as it is in France, so the momentum in the U.S. has been to keep exploiting the thing that is and fear the new problems that might come with adapting to something else.

A Good Read On Obama Foreign Policy Shifts To The Center

Referring people to the Wall Street Journal is a little like suggesting they check out this little movie called The Wizard of Oz -- odds are good they've already seen it. But this piece does a great job of tracking a variety of positions on which Democrat Barack Obama has shifted to the middle, including a number of key foreign policy stances, so I recommend everyone to it anyway. Besides, it ran on A8. Maybe fewer people saw it because of that.

The piece starts with Obama's change of heart about whether he would support any bill rewriting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that contains retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies. I examined the subject in-depth here, and it remains the biggest issue on which Obama's position changed dramatically since becoming the presumptive nominee.

But the Journal collected some other good examples of Obama shifts, too, among them his positions on Iraq, Iran and Israel. There's a little domestic policy stuff in there, too -- if that's your kind of thing.

Fewer Nukes In Europe Likely Under Both Obama And McCain

A new U.S. report on lax safety standards for nuclear weapons stored in Europe has Germany's parties on the left calling for their removal, but it may be a moot point. The next president of the United States was likely to answer their call before it even was made.

As the International Herald Tribune points out, just last month, Republican John McCain said that "in close consultation with our allies, I would like to explore ways we and Russia can reduce - and hopefully eliminate - deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe."

Democrat Barack Obama's position on the precise issue of nuclear weapons in Europe was harder to discern, but one can infer that since 1. he wants to reduce the overall U.S. stockpile and 2. eventually rid the world of nuclear weapons entirely, he would favor the removal of nukes from the continent.

So that's that. Maybe there's some value in it politically to the Social Democrats and other opposition parties in Germany to make the call they did, as the IHT suggests; maybe, that same group is aware of the difference between campaign goals and presidential policy and this puts pressure on Obama and McCain some how to stand firm in their position. But everyone's on the same page with this one, post-Bush administration.

A Pivot To The Middle For Obama On Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Barack Obama made a move to the middle in the first major foreign policy-related test of how he will pivot from primary to general election mode comes next week, expressing support for an overhaul of electronic surveillance rules that the administration favors but that the left despises. In doing so, he reversed a position he held just months ago, and angered many on the left of his party.

Obama was silent for a couple days on the new legislation. Politically, it's easy to see why: No matter which way he votes on the bill, he is going to catch hell. So sensitive is the matter that he even caught hell for not speaking up. Liberal bloggers had been pounding him, casting him as perhaps their only hope for stopping the bill.

During the primary, Obama voted against an earlier version of the bill, with his campaign saying that he was particularly concerned about granting retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies who are being sued for their alleged role in the president's warrantless surveillance program. The new version of the bill would almost certainly result in the same thing, but in a more roundabout fashion. Obama says he opposes that part of the bill, but it's hard to read his support of the overall legislation as anything other than a stark reversal, since he once said he would support a filibuster of any legislation that provides retroactive legal immunity.

Obama could have angered some moderates by voting against the bill, and given John McCain a target for more national security-related attacks. It is not clear how the electronic surveillance issue will play out in the general election; Republican attacks against Democrats who voted against the Bush administration's position in 2006 did not prove effective. It also may not register with voters who are more preoccupied with the Iraq War and gas prices. But Democrats remain wary, after decades of being cast by Republicans as weak on national security, of stepping into any traps. If that trap is going to ensnare Obama, it would be here, in the general election, instead of during primary season.

One of the things, however, that has marked the Obama campaign is a certain willingness to stand firm on a national security-related position even if Republicans are likely to attack because of that position. It may be that other factors were at play here in Obama reversing that practice -- like the fact that as president, he might benefit from the enhanced spying authority in the bill, or the fact that congressional leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had backed the new bill, forcing him to think about party unity or being labeled as more extreme than the San Francisco Democrat. No matter the motive, the pivot is extremely noteworthy.

Giuliani Levels, Then Draws, National Security Fire For McCain

Rudy Giuliani stepped back into presidential politics Wednesday to boost John McCain's national security-based attacks on Barack Obama, but got an earful from the media, Democrats and bloggers when he made negative remarks about Obama's views that were similar his own views at one time -- and about stances that put him at odds with McCain.

What's fair is fair. If, when Hillary Clinton sticks up for Obama, the Republicans jump all over both of them, they should expect the same back. The most compelling material dredged up on Giuliani is that he criticized Obama for his laudatory remarks about the 1993 World Trade Center case, but Giuliani himself had praised the same convictions for the same reasons back in 1994.

Then, of course, there's the matter of previous Republican primary sniping between McCain and Giuliani. McCain criticized Giuliani for having negligible national security experience -- the very attack he's leveled at Obama. And Giuliani and McCain likewise fought over the legality of interrogation techniques back then, a noteworthy point because it mixes up the message Giuliani was trying to send on behalf of McCain Wednesday about legal issues in the "war on terror."

As I wrote about with Clinton vs. Obama, the issue of Guiliani vs. himself and Giuliani vs. McCain probably won't get the same attention upon subsequent Giuliani forays back into a political campaign, since memories fade. But Wednesday? They were still pretty fresh.

Meet Obama's Foreign Policy Team... Kind Of

These two pieces in the Tuesday editions of the Wall Street Journal and Hartford Courant took a look at the Middle East foreign policy team of Barack Obama, but the details are disappointingly short. We're given names, but little information on where they've stood in the past on issues, how they're hashing out any differences they have behind the scenes of a campaign that has bucked some conventional foreign policy wisdom, etc. So far, the reporting on the behind-the-scenes struggle in the John McCain campaign has been both more interesting and contained more information, in particular on the tug-of-war between foreign policy pragmatists and neocons.

The Journal uses its profile to delve into some of the well-worn arguments and counter-arguments about meeting with enemy leaders, with its most telling details being about the group's influence on Obama's speech to AIPAC... but there's little examination of what some saw as a shift back toward more mainstream foreign policy concepts. The Courant piece -- actually a column, unlike the Journal's news piece -- at least asks a question about whether his group of advisers is sufficiently seasoned. But it doesn't come up with an answer, and may be missing the point. Wouldn't Obama boast that his advisers' lack of experience is a good thing, since he argues that what is needed is a fresh start and new approaches? An examination of the pros and cons of an experienced foreign policy team vs. a fresh-faced one with historical specifics would make for enriching reading, especially since that goes to the crux of one of the major Obama-McCain arguments over which of them to trust on foreign policy.

At least we know this: One of Obama's foreign policy advisers says everything we need to know about national security, we can learn from Winnie the Pooh. This strikes me as exactly the kind of thing that Republicans might jump on, regardless of whether the adviser's point is sound or harmlessly anecdotal. If they don't, I'll be surprised. It seems Democrats often forget how eager Republicans are to portray them as soft on terrorism, weak on national defense and the rest.

Free Trade As A Mechanism For Lowering International Standards To The United States' Level

It wasn't so long ago -- 2004, actually -- that Democratic presidential candidates like Howard Dean only supported free trade agreements if the country on the other end of the deal raised its environmental and labor standards to match ours. But from the way Barack Obama has been talking lately, he will only support expanding trade with South Korea if it LOWERS its safety and environmental standards.

Set aside the question of whether South Korea's beef with our beef safety standards is a product of legitimate concern or nationalism or both. There are experts who think their concerns are rational, and experts who think their concerns are paranoid. Although Obama claims our standards are higher than South Korea's, the New York Times fact check linked above concludes that the truth remains that if South Korea adjusts to American standards in this case, it will be lowering those standards.

Likewise for South Korea's automobile size-related tax. On Monday, Obama complained about the imbalance in car imports and exports between the U.S. and South Korea. But the reason for their tax is at least in part because of environmental standards.

Obama's Coming To A Country Near You

How's this for a fascinating notion: Barack Obama is considering going on an overseas tour during his presidential campaign.

Presidents have sometimes left the country during presidential campaigns. McCain is scheduled to go to Canada next week. But not since I've been following presidential campaigns have I heard of anyone doing a full-on tour. McClatchy, linked above, has a good take on on the pluses and minuses. On the plus side, it could offer a boost to his foreign policy credentials, perhaps, and a rebuff of John McCain's criticism about Obama not having visited Iraq since 2006. On the minus side, he'd have to make some tough decisions about where to visit and how.

One note left out of the McClatchy story: It might be hard for Obama to get an unvarnished view of Iraq should he go there. There'd have to be a heavy security presence, and lawmakers on previous trips -- including McCain -- have sometimes confused life inside that particular bubble with what the rest of Iraq is like. That's assuming the Secret Service would even allow it; one presidential candidate visiting instead of both -- as McCain once offered -- might be more feasible.

This overseas tour is an ambitious, risky concept. The trip may not happen; an Obama adviser would only go so far as to say "it's on the table," in effect. But it fits in with an Obama campaign theme that he could restore American esteem around the world, a notion that may not have mattered much in previous elections, but could be something voters take into account this go-round, with the United States increasingly disliked around so much of the world and with some Americans sensing the country has lost its leadership role. A positive reception abroad would stand to bolster his case.

And A Third Note On Detention Policy: What Would The Candidates Do?

The Washington Post Friday morning raises one more interesting point -- besides those previously raised by Michael and myself -- about the Supreme Court ruling on the Bush administration's detention policies and how it affects the presidential candidates.

Buried deep in the Post's analysis is this:
"[President] Bush has long expressed a desire to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and his administration has moved in recent years to return large numbers of detainees to their home countries. But of the 270 still detained there, about half are considered too dangerous to release, even though the government does not have enough evidence to charge them -- presenting a serious dilemma to presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama, both of whom have promised to shut down the facility if elected. In commenting on the Supreme Court case yesterday, neither candidate offered a detailed prescription for how he would fulfill his pledge."

McCain did, on Friday, suggest Congress should adopt legislation to address the court decision. That would, if successful and constructed properly, mean McCain would avoid having to deal with "a detailed prescription" for dealing with that segment of potentially dangerous detainees. But given that the court has now repeatedly struck down restrictive policies on this front, it may only be successful until that legislation was scrutinized by the Supreme Court again. And getting the legislation through what is expected to be a Democratic-controlled Congress doesn't sound easy. McCain also left the door open to eventually supporting a constitutional amendment narrowing habeas corpus rights. Such an amendment would have a difficult time getting enacted, to say the least, but it would at least avoid the courts.

Because of the unlikelihood of any of McCain's proposals coming to fruition, in the end, McCain is headed in the same direction as Obama -- in need of a "detailed prescription for how he would fulfill his pledge."

Detention Ruling Poses Opportunities, Risks For McCain, Obama

Today's Supreme Court ruling on the detention of terror suspects prompted reaction from both the candidates. The reaction of each points to how they'll discuss the issue in the general election, as Ben Smith suggests. Let's delve into that.

Voters overall have been fairly split on the issue of Guantanamo Bay, although none of the polls here, from last year, get into the nitty gritty of what the actual Supreme Court ruling was about.

John McCain, who was the leading voice on the law that the Court overturned in part, has to cater to a couple different constituencies. First, Republican voters have, since Sept. 11, largely endorsed the idea that the president should have flexibility to do most anything to pursue terrorists. McCain's "concern" today that the Court's ruling gives "unlawful combatants" status they don't deserve is red meat for those voters. But independent voters who are attracted to McCain because of his own independent streak are uncertain about Guantanamo. McCain's restatement of his desire to see Guantanamo closed -- which he has indeed expressed in the past -- is for those independents. On that point, McCain is also emphasizing distance between himself officials in the Bush administration who talk about closing Guantanamo eventually but not, like McCain has advocated, "immediately."

Smith gets the politics of the Obama rhetoric right. Emphasizing civil liberties is big for many hardcore liberal voters. It's also big with a smaller swath of independents with a libertarian bent. By emphasizing "bring[ing] terrorists to justice" too, though, Obama is appealing to moderate Democrats and independents who are willing to sacrifice some of their civil liberties (and/or, in this case, those of foreign terror suspects) for an increase in security. And it gives Obama another chance to tie McCain to President Bush, since, on the question of habeas corpus, the two have been in harmony.

With the economy taking center stage, and Iraq and Iran dominating many of the headlines that have a foreign policy twist, the Court's ruling doesn't have the look of an issue that will come up very much in the campaign. But for those crucial independent voters, it could factor into the overall equation, and the wrong answer for each candidate's base could deepen intra-party doubts about both men.

Clinton Promises Support, But Buttressing Obama On Foreign Policy Will Prove Difficult

Hillary Clinton said in her concession speech today that she will support Barack Obama on the campaign trail, but tops among the issues where she will find praise for Obama challenging is foreign policy, the area in which the divisions between the two Democrats have been the most stark. Republicans have already begun an effort to haunt Obama with Clinton's remarks during the primary race, and, notably, many of her criticisms they highlighted were on foreign policy -- both because of those divisions and because that's the area where Republicans want to attack Obama, too.

Of course, remarks during heated primary fights have not proven decisive or even particularly influential in subsequent general election battles. It was George H.W. Bush who saddled Ronald Reagan's economic policies with the label "voodoo economics." Scathing though it was, Reagan opponents could not use the term to stop him in 1980. And Bush ended up as Reagan's vice president, the same place Clinton reportedly is angling for with Obama. But at least for the near-term, any time Clinton talks about Obama's foreign policy, reporters are likely to highlight areas where she has criticized Obama in the past and praised John McCain over him. Republicans will try to keep those Clinton criticisms at the forefront.

While the two often staked similar policy stances, they also often fought sharply over each others' records. Although they feuded over their respective past positions on Iraq, their policies going forward were quite alike. On Iran, the two candidates used strikingly different rhetoric despite positions that were very similar at their most basic -- with the exception of whether and how they would meet with leaders of that country and other enemies, but where Obama's position is harder to read these days. On free trade, the two candidates had heated exchanges over who had previously offered the most support for NAFTA. Clinton's criticisms of Obama on those points will be used by GOP opponents to cast him as a flip-flopper on Iraq and free trade, and squishy on Iran and other dictators, for starters.

Clinton and Obama will be able to finesse those feuds to a certain degree, given their basic agreement. The remark that will surely be thrown into their faces the most, though, are comments along these lines from Clinton during the primary campaign: "In this election we need a nominee who can pass the commander-in-chief test. Someone ready on day it defend our country and keep our families safe. We need a president who passes that test. The first and most solemn duty of the president of the United States is to protect and defend our nation. And when there is a crisis and when the phone rings whether it’s 3:00 p.m. or 3:00 a.m. In the White House, there is no time for speeches and on the job training. Senator McCain will bring a time of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002. I think that is a significant difference. I think since we now know Senator McCain will be the nominee for the party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander in chief threshold. I believe that I have done that and certainly Senator McCain has done that. You will have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.”

Clinton's remarks today did not touch on Obama's foreign policy in any meaningful way, briefly mentioning the need to get troops out of Iraq, the urgency of conquering global warming, how the world would be different on foreign policy if Democrats had been in charge of late, and a general declaration that Obama has proven he is capable of being president. Carl Bernstein, a Clinton biographer, said on CNN today that Clinton will have to get around to explaining why Obama is suddenly qualified. That will take not just finesse, but an almost total reversal.

"Uncle Barack's Cabin"

Let's get meta! This may be the only opportunity of my life to write for a German news website on American politics, from America, about the U.S. reception for a German newspaper's coverage of politics in the United States -- as originally covered by yet another German newspaper. So here goes:

Die Tageszeitung's headline following Barack Obama's clinching primary win reads, "Uncle Barack's Cabin." Spiegel Online poses a question about the headline: "Offensive or satirical?"

This is exactly the kind of thing that, if a U.S. newspaper did it, would lead to all kinds of outrage. But since it's in Germany, the reception here has been more restrained.

The biggest U.S paper to give it any attention so far is USA Today, which asks: "Is German paper's Obama headline racist?" The rest is a rather sober rehashing of the Spiegel article.
The Village Voice finds in the "Uncle Barack's Cabin" headline a certain commendable quality, based on the editor-in-chief's justification of its intended satirical quality and his response of "tough luck" to any readers who don't understand it. Writes the Village Voice: "When's the last time you heard an editor of a major U.S. daily say that?"

And just to close on a meta note, the satirists over at Wonkette do their own satirical take on the Die Tageszeitung headline: "Ha ha, here is some great newspaper from Nazi Germany that comically names the White House 'Uncle Tom’s Cabin,' because a slave may soon call it home."

Is The Iraq War Now A Boon To McCain?

On a night when the race took another conclusive step toward becoming a general election campaign, both Barack Obama and John McCain spent large swaths of their Tuesday evening speeches focusing on Iraq. But to whose advantage?

The Washington Post's editorial page (hat tip Foreign Policy), which strongly supported the Iraq War, sees ample evidence that Obama will have to shift his Iraq stance. The major reason is the fact that May was the least deadly month of the entire Iraq War, among other security improvements and some of the most optimistic assessments of Bush administration officials yet.

When those details become widely known, it would not be surprising at all to see public opinion polls show a slight favorable shift toward the Iraq War. But it would be surprising to see the Iraq War become popular in any way whatsoever, let alone enough to be of aid to a candidate -- McCain -- whose identity is closely tied to it. Americans love winners, to be sure, and just as surely want success in Iraq. It's just that, after years of lives and treasure consumed for what turned out to be a faulty justification for war, few Americans want to see any more consumed. The proof is in the same polls. Since the surge, the security situation in Iraq has gotten better. And yet, the Iraq War is as unpopular as ever. This question, for an ABC/Washington Post poll, is particularly telling: "All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?" Since the beginning of 2007 through mid-April, the percentage of people who answered "worth it" has not crossed 40, and at last count stood at 34.

What's more, the Obama campaign -- whether ingenuously or sincerely -- has left itself options should Iraq's turn for the better continue. Obama's position, and that of all the Democrats who ran, has always been that he will consider the facts on the ground in deciding when or if to pull out troops. The only thing he's truly committed to is not staying in Iraq for 100 years -- a commitment that plays on a remark McCain made about that span of time and that Democrats have been using out of context. That flexibility will make it easier to mitigate any McCain gains if the war continues to move in a good direction.

McCain has little alternative but to try and capitalize on the improving situation in Iraq. He can't run from Iraq, at least not very much, nor has he really tried. But short of a 100% victory, a ticker tape parade and a sudden transformation of the Middle East because of it, it's hard to see how Iraq in 2008 is a political issue that can hurt Obama.

Meeting With Iran Is Dangerous... Unless It's Not

Was there ever previously a major campaign issue where the positions of the candidates were so loaded up with caveats, apparent contradictions and ambiguities the way there has been with the 2008 debate over how and whether the next president should meet with the leaders of enemy countries?

That debate kicked into a higher gear a couple weeks ago when President Bush, in a speech in Israel, made a cloaked allusion to Barack Obama's stance about being willing to meet with the leader of Iran and implied that Obama favored a policy of "appeasement," akin to those who favored negotiating with Adolf Hitler.

Set aside the apparent reversals, or, at best, subtleties in Obama's actual position on meeting with Iranian leaders. As it happens, Bush himself not so long ago indicated he had no problem meeting with leaders of Iran.

According to excerpts from a 2007 interview with Bush by an NBC News war correspondent, Bush said: "We can have meetings. Talking is not the problem. We can talk to Iran. But Iran wants nuclear weapons and I’m not going to let that happen. Not on my watch. We tried to have dialogue with Syria, right after the war, didn’t get much."

That contrasts with Bush's statement in Israel ridiculing those who would "negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." Around the same time Bush said that in Israel, his Defense secretary was saying of Tehran, "'We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them,' [Bob] Gates said. 'If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.'"

Maybe Bush can explain the difference between his two statements, but they are contradictory on their face. So, too, is the apparent "triangulation" by Obama on meeting with controversial foreign leaders at a time when polls suggest its popularity, and John McCain's continued assaults on Obama's position despite its positive reception from voters. But then, the latest twists and turns in this debate are par for the course.

Candidates Unite On Darfur, But What Next?

Recently, the three U.S. presidential candidates released a joint statement on Darfur calling the situation there a genocide and blaming the Sudanese government for it, a remarkable bit of cooperation during an election season. Naturally, the candidates won praise for setting aside partisanship on an important issue. But the statement is short on specifics, and what the candidates have proposed separately in the past neglects at least one of the thorniest problems.

All three -- Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama -- have called for a no-fly zone over Darfur, as did President Bush last year. The idea is supported by some Darfur-related advocacy groups, including the Save Darfur Coalition, which spearheaded the tri-candidate letter. But the idea has not been greeted so warmly in parts of Europe. At the European Union, a top official has called it "technically impossible." Others dismiss it for other reasons. For example, the candidates have specifically called for a NATO-backed no-fly zone, which some experts believe could create more problems than it would solve, since the regime might respond by worsening its attacks or cutting off relief. (Interestingly enough, an Obama adviser, Susan Rice, told VOA last year that there should be a "'very short duration ultimatum in which to accept an effective and robust international force with a mandate to protect civilians - or face the threat of the use of military force,' she said. According to Rice, this force should take the form of 'air strikes, targeted at the aircraft, the airfields [of the Sudanese government]. That's exactly what we [the international community through the UN] did in Kosovo, in a far lesser humanitarian crisis. It's striking to me that we aren't even discussing or contemplating that in the context of Darfur.'") All three candidates, as well, have voted for or proposed increases in funding to help improve the situation in Darfur, and there are minor variations in some of their other, smaller, proposals.

But one of the biggest barriers to solving the problem, if not the biggest, is another country entirely. That country is China, since China is buying up much of Sudan's oil, rendering divestment campaigns around the world less effective and making it hard to deal out any economic pressure. Furthermore, with its veto as a member of the U.N. Security Council, China has been an impediment to all manner of international attempts to intervene in Darfur. If the candidates have enunciated anything they would do specifically to convince China to A. get out of the way of international efforts to intervene or B. use its own economic leverage to halt the genocide, they have done so discreetly. All three did support a boycott of the Olympics' opening ceremony as a way of highlighting various controversial China policies. But as with all things Darfur, there is no agreement on whether the best policy on China as it pertains to Darfur is humiliation or incentives. There are some signs that China has gotten skittish about Darfur, but there's little evidence to suggest they've gotten skittish enough about it to force change. Anonymously, Chinese officials have noted that their country is not the only one to support repressive regimes that are rich in oil.

The joint statement from the candidates, and the respective records of each on Darfur, suggests that all three, as president, would be inclined to do more than Bush. Giving attention to the issue at all is part of the solution. But eventually, the candidates -- or, at minimum, the one who wins the White House -- will have to fill in some difficult blanks.

The Candidates' Cluster Bomb Divide

Over in Dublin this week, the world was uniting behind a treaty to ban cluster bombs -- well, most of the world, anyway, since there were some significant hold-outs: the U.S., Russia and China, for instance. As it happens, two of the three presidential candidates almost certainly would maintain the United States' current position on cluster munitions.

Democrat Barack Obama has voted in the Senate to support a ban on cluster bombs in civilian areas. The vote came in 2006, and Republican John McCain voted against the ban, as did Hillary Clinton -- one rare vote where Obama and Clinton voted differently. Ultimately, the vote fell short, 30-70.

A search of newspapers and the candidates' Senate websites from that year turns up no explanation for why each candidate voted the way they did. It is therefore unclear whether Obama opposes cluster munitions in all cases or just in civilian areas. For a pretty good breakdown of the pros and cons of cluster bombs -- morally, tactically -- the Associated Press did a run-down here.

Foreign Policy Blunders By McCain Help Obama

My colleague Michael wrote recently about the foreign policy gaffes of Barack Obama and how they feed into John McCain's strategy of emphasizing his foreign policy credentials and Obama's inexperience. But as it happens, McCain has had his share of international affairs blunders this year. They've happened farther away from the spotlight, often at moments when the protracted Democratic primary battle was particularly heated, overshadowing anything McCain did or said.

The first was a series of misstatements where McCain had to correct himself for claiming multiple times that Iran was training al Qaeda operatives. That organization is Sunni, while Iran is overwhelmingly Shiite, and rarely have the two played nice with one another. McCain got hit by the Washington Post's Fact-Checker for making the claim.

More recently, McCain asserted that because "the average American" thinks Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the leader of that country, he is. In fact, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the one with authority over foreign policy. This is a little akin to Hillary Clinton's statement that she's not going to "put my lot with economists" when every economist alive criticized her plan to suspend the gas tax.

Another McCain embarrassment on the foreign policy front is that a number of people working for his campaign had lobbied for repressive foreign governments, including Burma and Saudi Arabia. This one was a double hit, because not only were the actual affiliations of those campaign officials dubious, but McCain has spoken many times before about the evils of lobbyists. Several have departed, but not all of them.

And the newest mistake was McCain's claim, in ridiculing Obama: "Many believe all we need to do to end the nuclear programs of hostile governments is have our president talk with leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran, as if we haven't tried talking to these governments repeatedly over the past two decades." As this writer and others were quick to point out, the U.S. policy on Iran has, for decades now, been not to talk to Tehran. (Three of the four here, notably, are about Iran.)

In each of these cases, liberal groups, blogs or political organizations quickly jumped on McCain. Democrats clearly have learned from a strategy popularized by Bush's former political guru, Karl Rove: Focus the attacks on an opponent's strength, not just his weakness. Republicans attacked John Kerry in 2004 over his Vietnam War record, when Kerry's resume as a veteran was one of the things that Democrats thought would make him electable and hard to attack on defense issues. McCain has the edge in overseas-related experience, sure, but going after mistakes he makes on that front gives Democrats a chance to try and neutralize that apparent advantage. In a campaign where sensitivities about race and gender have been in the forefront, that line of attack also gives Democrats a chance to play to concerns about McCain's age by questioning whether the ravages of old age have left him confused. Republicans have implied that's Democrats' intent, anyway; so far, none of the attacks have been that explicit.

The thing to watch will be whether Democrats can combine McCain's support of the Iraq War and some of the aforementioned blunders into a potent enough antidote to the problem Michael wrote about.

McCain And Nukes: Three Key Points

Everyone has had a different take on the big foreign policy speech by John McCain Tuesday, which was about how he would pursue nuclear non-proliferation as president. With all that the Republican presidential candidate said about nukes today -- and, more discretely, a couple days ago -- it's worthwhile to boil down the most meaningful policy and political ramifications of it all into three key areas:

1. McCain did indeed take a more moderate tack than President Bush has in several areas, although not in any dramatic way. The Los Angeles Times' take on this is particularly sharp. For instance, while Bush has supported the development of "bunker buster" bombs, McCain said he would not do the same. But because Congress has not provided funding for bunker busters, Bush has largely backed away from making a push for them. As with several aspects of McCain's speech, there is a substantial difference in the positions between McCain and Bush on non-proliferation, but the actual, practical difference is tiny to non-existent.

2. However, while Bush has moved toward the middle on North Korea, McCain has veered back toward the more hard line, neoconservative point of view. That's what the Washington Post took out of an op-ed Monday in the Asian Wall Street Journal. The Post's take is correct, which is assuredly why the McCain campaign sought to avoid answering how it feels about the current status of the Bush administration's negotiations with North Korea. McCain wanted to play up his differences with Bush because Bush is unpopular, but in an area where McCain is to the right of Bush, that appeals only to a narrower slice of the electorate.

3. One particularly crucial aspect of McCain's plan -- seeking greater coordination with Russia -- has got to be sending mixed messages to the United States' old Cold War rival. McCain notably said last year that when he looked in Vladimir Putin's eyes, "I saw three letters: K.G.B." McCain has said he would seek to kick Russia out of the G-8. These are both confrontational postures. But Tuesday, McCain toned down his rhetoric about Russia. Per the LA Times: "On Tuesday, McCain argued that the U.S. and Russia still had 'serious differences' but said they were 'no longer mortal enemies' in the post-Cold War era." That said, Democrats are correct to point out that McCain's call to eject Russia from the G-8 is hard to square with his call for greater cooperation with Russia on other matters.

"It's No Longer Going To Be That We Are In The Lead And Everyone Follows Us"

The news out of the U.K. this evening is rather fascinating. The Guardian reported that Barack Obama, in a telephone address to a group of American expatriates in London who were gathered at a fundraiser, called for a fairer relationship between the U.K. and U.S. But what was most compelling was what an unnamed foreign policy adviser to the campaign told the Guardian, a statement that would reflect a rather dramatic shift from the George Bush years.

"We have a chance to recalibrate the relationship and for the United Kingdom to work with America as a full partner," Obama reportedly said. Even more interesting, the Guardian reported that an Obama foreign policy adviser told the paper: "It's no longer going to be that we are in the lead and everyone follows us. Full partners not only listen to each other, they also occasionally follow each other."

On one level, Obama's position placates anxiety in Great Britain toward years of playing loyal second fiddle to the U.S. Tony Blair, regularly derided as "Bush's poodle," suffered politically for supporting the president on the Iraq War. Current prime minister Gordon Brown has indicated he will not be so unconditional in his support of the U.S.

But what of the unnamed Obama adviser? Obama has made plain that he would emphasize diplomacy in his foreign policy as president, so the remark could just be an extension of that. But it comes at a time when there is a discussion in foreign policy circles about whether the U.S. is about to enter into "The Post-American World," the title of a book by noted international affairs writer Fareed Zakaria; the case being that the U.S. will still be a world leader, but other states will rise in influence. Is the Obama adviser tilting in that direction?

Congressional Elections And Their Influence On Foreign Affairs

There are a handful of areas where Congress' influence on public policy is particularly weak, and foremost among them is foreign affairs. The upcoming congressional elections aren't likely to have much sway over the United States' international posture.

Congress has little authority to alter the day-to-day diplomatic efforts of the executive branch. Within the sphere of foreign relations, Congress' greatest power, as with most matters, is that it assigns funding. For example: Democrats have attempted to alter funding for the Iraq War in a way that would have the effect of ending the engagement in Iraq. In the House, where Democrats have a strong majority, they have routinely succeeded in adding such language to funding bills, since even unanimous Republican opposition cannot overcome Democrats when they are mostly unified. In the Senate, where Democrats hold a one-vote margin of control and procedural differences make it harder for one party to ram its agenda through, unified Republicans can be far more effective. Rather than vote against an unpopular war, they have stood with President Bush.

That dynamic could change somewhat with the next Congress, where Democrats are likely to widen their margin of control in both the House and Senate. Election forecasters believe they are unlikely to pick up enough seats in the Senate to be able to foil a Republican filibuster -- 60 are needed to avoid such a procedural blockade. Should Barack Obama take control of the White House, this point becomes largely moot. To return to the Iraq example, Obama has made clear his plan to withdraw troops. But if John McCain wins the White House, and several Republicans lose their reelection bids and it turns out that Iraq was one of the reasons, McCain will have a bigger problem on his hands than Bush did on the Iraq front. Say Democrats have 57 members in the Senate in 2009. Now only three votes are needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Some Republicans may be more inclined to break their party unity after watching other Republican senators lose their job over their Iraq votes, and join the Democrats' anti-war efforts.

But because McCain would likely veto any bill that is geared toward ending the Iraq War, Democrats would need to win 70 votes to overturn that veto. There is little chance they would get that many unless Republicans suddenly make a sudden and dramatic shift in their voting patterns.

As American political scientist Larry Sabato told McClatchy: "If it's McCain, he would find his domestic policies dead on arrival. His only real influence with Congress would be in the foreign sphere." In other words, McCain likely wouldn't be able to convince a strong Democratic majority to adopt much of his domestic agenda. But he'd be able to defend his foreign agenda from attack by Democrats. To be accurate, McCain would be better defending against the Democratic agenda on both domestic and foreign policy. But because he has more leeway on foreign policy, he would be more free to do there as he pleased than he would on domestic issues.

Foreign policy issues, like the war in Iraq, may end up having some effect on congressional races. But the outcome of those congressional races are almost certain not to return the favor.

A Little-Noticed Item On Each Campaign's Views On Israel-Syria Peace Talks

The Jerusalem Post managed to get the U.S. presidential campaigns to weigh in on the Israel-Syria peace talks. The results mirror the divide between the candidates themselves on a central foreign policy argument they've been having over the value of diplomacy and what form it should take.

Barack Obama: "'I am encouraged that Israel and Syria have renewed peace talks and fully support Israel's efforts to advance peace with all its neighbors,' he said in statement e-mailed to the Post. 'I have consistently said that the United States must stand ready to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors and should not block Israel from the negotiating table, nor force it to negotiate.'"

John McCain: "'Senator McCain's view is that the sovereign government of Israel should be free to make its own decisions on how best to defend Israel and whether to engage in negotiations,' said Randy Scheunemann, the campaign's director of foreign policy and national security, who wouldn't comment on the potential for an American role in the talks."

But in some ways what their anonymous surrogates said in the story was more interesting.

The announcement of the Israel-Syria talks came after President Bush made a remark in Israel that implied meeting with controversial leaders like those in Iran constituted "appeasement." The Post writes: "Some political analysts have viewed Israel's announcement of indirect talks with Syria just days after the political controversy of Bush's Knesset remarks as a vindication for Obama's position. 'He has said many times that he thinks diplomacy is a very useful tool for achieving our national interests and goals. It's a tool that has been underutilized by this administration,' said an Obama campaign adviser. 'But he's not citing these developments to prove a point.'"

McCain's team, which backed up Bush's "appeasement" remark, dismissed the usefulness of talks with Syria. Per the Post: "The McCain camp pointed out that talks can be more than difficult - they can be pointless. 'It's clear that it takes more than just talking and meeting up with countries like Syria to achieve a resolution of differences,' someone close to the campaign told the Post, saying that former US secretary of state Warren Christopher 'practically had a second home in Damascus' but came up empty-handed."

Cool Tool III: Fact-Checking Foreign Policy Claims

I'll do my best in this space to point out factual inaccuracies and false claims by candidates and their surrogates on foreign policy. But there are a variety of organizations that regularly fact-check the candidates on a variety of issues, including foreign policy, that I can recommend.

For starters, my own non-DW World employer, CQ, has a relatively new fact-checking wing: Politifact. (Recent fact check on: John McCain saying "Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the president of Iran without any preconditions.")

The most established of the fact-checking operations is the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org. (Recent fact check on: "Two Democratic Party TV ads hit McCain on Iraq and the economy. We supply context and corrections.")

And The Washington Post has their own fact-checkers monitoring the campaign. (Recent fact check on: "McCain, Obama and kissing dictators.")

McCain Wants To Imitate U.K., India; More On Obama And Islam

--John McCain just made a great number of fans out of the kind of nerds who watch C-SPAN at odd hours. C-SPAN broadcasts the floor action of the U.S. House and Senate, but has, on occasion, broadcast the British tradition alternately called "Question Time," "Prime Minister's Questions" or something else, where the prime minister engages in a rapid fire exchange with the legislative body. The tradition is also found in India, Israel and a number of other countries, and has a cult following here in the States. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, said last week he would like to subject himself to the same treatment, which is often marked by hollering and quick-witted insults.

Because the proposal was buried in a more far-ranging policy speech, it only recently started getting any attention of note. An unscientific sampling of responses suggests it could help McCain win over some of his skeptics. When I mentioned it to one friend, he replied, half-joking: "I almost want to vote for him for that alone." Christopher Hitchens, a British-American writer who sometimes defends the Iraq War but whose politics have moved to the left, wrote some gushing praise of McCain's idea. CQ, linked above, found a mixed reaction from members of Congress themselves.

--A follow-up on yesterday's post about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and whether he would be shunned in the Muslim world:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has weighed in on this as of today. Where the group has received criticism, it has been from groups or individuals who argue CAIR has promoted extremist views. So that would seem to lend added weight to its interpretation, since the most extreme strain of Islam would seem to be the one most likely to consider Obama an apostate.

CAIR concludes that the New York Times op-ed is inaccurate. The group's own op-ed states: "Obama is neither a convert nor an apostate for the simple fact that he never declared himself a Muslim to begin with. The fact that his father and grandfather were Muslims does not itself determine his own faith status."

Reasonable people differ on this. But much of the evidence seems to favor the view that, at least for the majority of the Muslim world, including some extreme elements, Obama would not be considered an apostate.

Contradictory Claims On Obama And Islam

I'd seen this article not long ago, alleging that Barack Obama would be unpopular in the Muslim world because of his background, and thought it was interesting, especially since it was in The New York Times. But something about it wasn't quite right.

First, its author, Edward Luttwak, is not some detached observer. He is widely referred to as a neoconservative. Second, I am no expert in Islamic law. So I wasn't sure whether it was accurate, and since it was an op-ed instead of a news article, there was no counter point of view. I certainly had to wonder: If the leader of Hamas said Obama was his preferred candidate, surely Obama's conversion to Christianity wasn't that big a deal, right?

As it happens, there is a great deal wrong with the op-ed. This author -- writing for the liberal Huffington Post, so take that into account -- makes a persuasive case nonetheless that the op-ed is factually incorrect.

So, just to summarize, here are all the things that are wrong with Obama on this front according to his opponents, accurate or no:
1. He is secretly a Muslim.
2. He is affiliated with his crazy Christian ex-minister.
3. Even though he was born a Muslim, that won't make him popular with Muslims because his conversion to Christianity will make him a heretic to them, undermining one of his foreign policy claims.
4. He is the favorite candidate of Hamas, an organization rooted in Islam.

It can't be all of them, right? It all adds up, as this writer states, to "dangerous nonsense."

Democrats Growing Confident On National Security

Earlier this year, I wrote part of a cover story for CQ Weekly about Democrats challenging President Bush on national security. In particular, what struck me was how Democrats who had just months earlier gave Bush every bit of warrantless wiretapping authority he wanted suddenly turned around when it was time to make that authority permanent and said, "No more."

What, I wondered, had gotten into them? What I found was this: Democrats looked at the polls and found that they were closer than they had been in a long time to Republicans on national security, who have a historical advantage with voters on that topic. Democrats also found that by offering a compelling defense of themselves instead of just trying to change the topic to the economy or some other area where they had an advantage, they were able to, in this case, have some success winning the argument with the public.

It is now exceedingly clear that the model Democrats used there will be their formula in the presidential campaign, too. The dispute over Barack Obama's willingness to meet with controversial foreign leaders shows it. Democrats quickly jumped to Obama's defense and stood firm. On Sunday, they also tried to win the argument. In a televised interview, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden explained how Republicans have done the very same thing Obama would do: "Let’s talk about talking. President Bush, the White House, called me, several years ago, told me Air Force Two was waiting for me at Andrews Air Force Base; would I get on the plane and go meet with (Libyan President Muammar al-) Gadhafi, a real known terrorist, personally, a terrorist — personally responsible for killing kids at the school I went to, Syracuse University, blowing up that Pan Am flight,” Sen. Joe Biden said on ABC’s “This Week." “The president of the United States asked me to go. He cut a deal with Gadhafi, directly. It was a smart thing to do. He gave up his nuclear weapons, Gadhafi.”

There's something strange about Democrats simultaneously saying that 1. the Bush and John McCain attacks on Obama for meeting with controversial foreign leaders shows the need for change, since Bush's approach hasn't worked; and 2. Republicans do meet with controversial foreign leaders, too. There are other counter-arguments as well. And maybe it all plays into Republicans' hands in the end, since the amount of time spent on national security arguments could favor them by keeping the focus where they want it. What's interesting is that Democrats are even making the argument at all.

How They'd Meet With Controversial Foreign Leaders: Trivial No More

Not long ago, I wrote about how the manner in which the two Democratic presidential candidates would meet with controversial foreign leaders had become a major campaign issue. It had become a major campaign issue despite the fact that Barack Obama and his team had fuzzed up their position (would meet with controversial leaders "without preconditions," but with "preparation") to the point that it was hard to distinguish from Hillary Clinton's (would only meet with controversial leaders with preconditions). Many had originally dismissed the divide as trivial.

After President Bush's veiled attack on Obama, comparing his position without mentioning his name to the appeasement of Hitler -- an attack Republican John McCain seconded -- it's now the story that's dominating the campaign headlines in the U.S.

CNN has it right: This is a preview of the general election campaign. McCain thinks the issue plays to his image as strong and firm on national security. Obama thinks it will help him link McCain to Bush's foreign policy.

Obama As Foreign Policy Revolutionary

Quite by accident, I find myself following closely on the point of my colleague Michael's latest post.

John McCain has drawn plenty of attention in the 2008 presidential campaign as the candidate bucking traditional foreign policy wisdom in key areas... some of it positive, as Michael finds, although certainly not all of it. But is it the Republican's expected Democratic rival, Barack Obama, the real foreign policy revolutionary?

That's the view of liberal writer Matthew Yglesias, who argues the lengthy primary battle against Hillary Clinton has sharpened Obama's foreign policy views. I quote Yglesias extensively: "As the campaign stretched on and Clinton sharpened her attacks on Obama’s commander-in-chief credentials, he began to counter by questioning her whole approach to foreign policy—the establishment approach. Today, Obama calls not only for direct negotiations with leaders of rogue states, but also for an American commitment to eventual global nuclear disarmament (in part to reinvigorate nonproliferation efforts); a substantial rebalancing of American military priorities toward Afghanistan (and away from Iraq); a softening of the embargo on Cuba; and a widening of the current, single-minded focus on democracy promotion to include other development goals that might more effectively prevent terrorist recruitment. Many think that there’s little difference between the Democrats on policy grounds. That may once have been true, but over time—and largely in response to Clinton’s barbs—Obama’s foreign-policy approach has evolved into something substantially different from either Clinton’s or McCain’s."

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele is less hopeful. He sees potential in some of Obama's unconventional views listed above, and his approach toward viewing the United States as the rest of the world does. But he finds retreat in Obama's positions on Iran and Israel of late: "So the big questions remain: does Obama really want to change US foreign policy and can he, if he does? Having a black person in the Oval Office, and especially one with an understanding of US imperialism, would have a colossal international impact in itself. But would this merely result in even greater disappointment once the months go by and US policy stays the same? In my kishkas I feel Obama is our best hope. In my mind I prepare for business as usual."

Obama's Israel Views -- Better With The Left, Bad With The Right

Barack Obama's tour to win the hearts of Jewish voters has had the intended effect with some -- approval. It has had the opposite effect with people he never had a chance of winning over -- condemnation. The rest? That may yet take time to sort out.

Obama won over the editor of The New Republic, a hawkish but predominantly moderate Democratic publication. That editor, Marty Peretz, is among the "more vocal U.S. backers of Israel" I talked about yesterday. He won over Jeffrey Goldberg, the interviewer.

Those on the right? They pounced on what they could, which many dubbed dishonest. At the very minimum, conservatives didn't give Obama the benefit of the doubt. In one sense, what those on the right say about Obama and Israel doesn't matter much, because they aren't the people he hoped to convince. But if their interpretation makes it into the broader debate, it might be able to poison the well for the larger audience Obama does want to reach.

It is those voters we haven't heard from much -- most of the response thus far has been from opinion-makers on one side or the other. Again, Obama's potential problems with Jews may be overstated and based more, as I said yesterday, on the fact that the Democratic race remains unsettled. One key Jewish supporter of Obama told the New York Times that his poll numbers, already climbing with Jews, would assuredly continue to inch up after Obama's nomination is locked up.

Obama, Israel

Barack Obama has been having a devil of a time with some of the United States' more vocal backers of Israel, who have been critical of him for, among other things, his willingness to have talks with the president of Iran, who has been very threatening toward the Jewish state. "Some of the United States' more vocal backers of Israel" is not necessarily the same as "Jewish voters," as this writer points out. But there's sufficient overlap to make one wonder about this poll, which shows that Jews back Obama over Republican John McCain but not as overwhelmingly as they did the 2004 Democratic candidate, John Kerry. Whether that is because of the problem Obama is having with his Israel position or something else -- like the still-unsettled Democratic primary, where voters are divided between Obama and Hillary Clinton -- is unclear.

Still, Obama tried to spotlight his commitment to Israel and affinity with Jews in this interview with The Atlantic. (The interviewer wrote a very interesting piece, which he linked to in the interview with Obama, about the "existential dread" in Israel these days.) Obama's general commitment is fairly standard for American politicians. To put it another way, as this writer did, being "pro-Israel" is not much different than being "pro-food" among U.S. pols. If his goal was to put questions about his views to rest, the interview probably didn't do the trick by itself; this writer, admittedly not Obama's target audience because he writes for a conservative publication, still has plenty. But Politico's Ben Smith, who writes for a non-partisan publication, also noticed Obama was trying to walk a bit of a tightrope. It's difficult political terrain Obama is traversing here.

No Matter Who Wins: No More Guantanamo Bay

The Boston Globe penned this thoughtful piece about each of the remaining candidates' stance on Guantanamo Bay. All three have said they want to close it.

There are subtle differences between all three candidates on the issue, and Republican John McCain has left the door open to some Guantanamo Bay-like replacement. But his position is at odds with President Bush -- even though administration officials have talked of closing the facility eventually -- something that could help McCain make the case that his administration will not "a third term for Bush," as Democrats have been trying to convince voters.

A Costly Mistake On Hamas

Pretend that you're an adviser to the Barack Obama campaign. A Hamas leader speaks complimentary words about your candidate. The Republican candidate, John McCain, however faulty the logic, makes a point of associating your candidate with Hamas because of the leader's remarks. Other Republicans, meanwhile, try to tie Obama to former president Jimmy Carter's meetings with Hamas. Obama's position has always been that those meetings were a bad idea. Do you, as an adviser to the Obama campaign, then proceed to meet with Hamas yourself?

One such adviser, Robert Malley, did. He either left or was fired from the campaign because of it. Now, it may be that he is but one of "hundreds" of informal advisers, as the Obama campaign stated. It may be, in the end, a tempest in a teapot. But this has been a sensitive issue in the campaign, and every little bit of tempest adds ammo to the attack.

Malley said the Obama camp knew generally about his meetings with "all kinds of people" in his job at a conflict-resolution think tank, but may not have known about the meetings with Hamas specifically. But shouldn't Malley have mentioned it to them? Or, is the fault of Obama's "inexperience," as a McCain spokesperson said?

An International Affairs VP?

Mining a theme from a previous post, we're starting to get in the ballpark in this presidential race where talk turns to who will serve in the next administration. Noteworthy in this talk? The question of whether the Democratic nominee will pick someone as his or her running mate who has a foreign policy or national security background.

Speculation is speculation, of course, and McClatchy clearly subscribes to "truth in labeling" with the headline on this story, about who Barack Obama might choose as his vice president. But it's informed speculation -- it quotes both party officials and outside experts. Four of the eight people on McClatchy's have resumes that feature national security or foreign policy experience. They are Senator Joe Biden, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman (whose potential I already discussed here); retired Army General and former NATO commander Wesley Clark; former Governor Bill Richardson; and Senator Jim Webb, a former Navy secretary. Each have pluses and minuses separate from their international or security credentials, and other factors may play into the selection; the list also includes four minorities.

Foreign policy doesn't figure as heavily into the speculation on the Republican side about who might run alongside John McCain. Of the 32 hypothetical candidates picked by CQ, fewer than 10 can be said to offer international credentials as one of their main selling points.

Some Democrats, such as these, may be feeling confident that they can win the argument over national security in the general election. But it's clear to others that they might want a little insurance.

The Pivot To The General Election

Usually by now in the United States, the presidential campaign would have spawned a great number of articles like this one: "An in-tray full of foreign policy problems," reads the headline, and the author lays out any number of challenges ahead for the candidate who wins the race. That is: articles that spell out, issue by issue, the topics that the next president will have to address, what each candidate might do with those issues and who might help them do it.

The prolonged Democratic primary has prevented a good number of them -- it has been the focus of almost all of the reportorial energy out there. But I think they're about to start flowing after yesterday's setbacks for Hillary Clinton. Today came this one, about who might serve in a Barack Obama cabinet, as well as a John McCain cabinet, and, oh, by the way, just in case, a Clinton cabinet.

I expect to contribute my share of those kind of pieces at Congressional Quarterly, which I will link here when appropriate. This week, I wrote the cover story for CQ Weekly, about the dramatic reorganization of the U.S. intelligence community. I found that many experts, whether they were in favor of it or not, found it to be a disappointment. What progress has been made, they said, has not been so much because of the reorganization but because of the personalities in all of the top jobs now. Unfortunately, few experts are hopeful that the cooperation in place now would last into the next administration, when Obama, McCain, or, remotely, Clinton take office. It's going to take a concentrated effort -- or as one former Sept. 11 commissioner noted, leadership to go back to Congress and change the flaws in the 2004 law that created the reorganization -- to make more progress. U.S. intelligence obviously plays a major role in its foreign policy, from the Iraq War to the Syria/North Korea situation to all the rest.

(In a rare bit of convergence, it turns out that an entry that I did for a boxing blog has an dual U.S. presidential/international affairs angle -- former presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is trying to help former heavyweight champ Vitali Klitschko become mayor of Kiev, Ukraine. You can read it here. It's not related to the topic of this blog entry, but if I'm going to cross-promote, I might as well REALLY cross-promote.)

U.S. Presidential Campaign "News Of The Weird," African Edition

As of this writing, the votes in North Carolina and Indiana are still rolling in, so we won't find out for a day or two whether the aforementioned foreign policy differences between Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were influential to the outcome. The networks are calling North Carolina for Obama and Indiana for Clinton, and early exit polls, while notoriously unreliable, suggest the economy was central.

But worlds away in recent weeks, the race itself was having a huge impact.

In Nigeria, rebels were considering a ceasefire because of an appeal from Obama. The best part about this? Until after the news broke, Obama hadn't urged a ceasefire anytime recently.

Nigeria is not the only African country that seems to be paying very close attention to the Democratic primary. A couple weeks ago, this news surfaced: In Kenya, "Hillary" and "Barack" are now two of the most popular baby names. (Hat tip to Foreign Policy.)

What this all means, I won't even try to guess. But it's awfully interesting.

Foreign Policy Once Again Front And Center At A Crucial Moment In The Democratic Primary

Whether the general election this year turns on foreign policy issues, as it did in 2004, we cannot know now.

But in the Democratic primary, at least for now, foreign policy is once again taking on a prominent role at a key moment, in the waning days before Tuesday's votes in North Carolina and Indiana. It is an issue where voters can decide on policy differences, as opposed to more trivial matters. Consider this writer's viewpoint, rendered after watching separate television appearances by the candidates: "In a primary race where the differences between the two candidates are sometimes hard to discern, there were two vivid ones on display Sunday morning as Barack Obama did Meet the Press and Hillary Clinton did This Week in a town hall setting in Indiana. The first is temperamental... Second, their foreign policy perspectives are markedly different. From his point of view, threatening Iran is 'George Bush foreign policy.' From hers, it's making clear to our most menacing adversary that we mean business. Yes, they have merged views on Iraq (if you take them at their word), but the similarity ends there." [Commentary magazine, because it is thought of as a neoconservative publication, has a tint of ideology to its other characterizations of the candidates in the same blog entry.]

Those foreign policy differences have been prominently on display, with most headlines in the last couple days reading something like this one: "Clinton and Obama spar on gas tax and Iran policy." Iran is, by definition, a foreign policy story. The gas tax feud, because of the questions it raises about U.S. energy policy and its relation to overseas oil -- and because of less-covered components of Clinton's plan -- is also heavily a foreign policy story.

McCain Foreign Policy Concepts That Europe May Undo

Republican presidential nominee has proposed two foreign policy ideas that are certainly bold, and, in the words of some, "radical." One of them is his League of Democracies, which I touched on here. Another is his plan to ejected Russia from the G-8.

Whatever the value of these two proposals -- both have more detractors than fans, it seems -- they are both marked by one thing: They appear to be impossible. They both rely on foreign cooperation that, in the current environment, at least, doesn't appear to be in abundance.

McClatchy's Washington bureau has examined the proposal to eject Russia from the G-8. The main problem, they found, is that the G-7 won't let him. "'In Europe, there's very little support . . . for a policy like that,' said Stephen Larrabee, an expert on Europe and Russia at the RAND think tank. 'It's too late in the game to try and oust Russia.'"

The lack of interest in Europe so far for a League of Democracies, too, makes the idea for that less feasible.

To their credit, the McCain foreign policy team recognizes the difficulty of the G-8 idea. "Randy Scheunemann, the foreign-policy director for McCain's campaign, acknowledged that 'there would be very vigorous discussion' within the G-8 of a proposal to exclude Russia. He said Russia was 'on a different political and economic trajectory' when it joined the group a decade ago, and he said it's unlikely that the same invitation would be extended today."

In some ways, the value of the Russia proposal may be separate from whether it's feasible. The goal may have more to do with putting pressure on Russia. But that's a separate question that will require more examination as the campaign goes on.

Whether Obama And Clinton Want European-Style Health Care

New York Times fact check of John McCain claims says, "No."

(And, according to FactCheck.org, McCain's complaint about Democrat groups saying he's in favor of a 100-year war in Iraq -- mentioned in the Times piece -- is valid.)

McCain As Neocon, Realist, Multilateralist, Unilateralist

If there is any use in political labels at all, one is in their predictive power. A self-declared foreign policy "realist" -- or someone who has consistently behaved as one -- is going to be pretty cautious about invading Iraq to begin with, as Colin Powell was. A foreign policy "neoconservative" is going to think more about the ideals of the movement and achieving them by invading Iraq, as Paul Wolfowitz did.

John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, is playing havoc with a variety of labels that might be applied to his foreign policy. I've already addressed one: whether McCain is a "true" foreign policy conservative. But the last several weeks have brought scrutiny of what labels best fit his foreign policy views. I won't try to solve it, like I did last time. I'll just put the scrutiny on display, as food for thought, for now. (If you're not hungry, pretend it's a fun multiple choice game.)

Is McCain a realist, a neocon or would he try to be both?

Is he a multilateralist or unilateralist?

Does his proposal for a League of Democracies reflect the viewpoint of a liberal internationalist or neoconservative, or both? (If it still matters.)

Two Quick Addenda: Gas Prices, Iran

--Yesterday, I dipped into one less-covered portion of Hillary Clinton’s gas price plan that had an international component. With gas prices still heavily in the news, why not discuss another?

This part of the plan would allow OPEC members to be sued under U.S. antitrust law. Like her proposal to file a complaint to the WTO about OPEC, this one has also been around before. Unlike the complaint proposal, the antitrust proposal has not been greeted so skeptically. At first, in 2000, according to the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), it had little support. It had a catchy name, "NOPEC," but little else. But by last year, the proposal from Sen. Herb Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin, had generated some momentum. The White House had threatened to veto it, but the House voted to approve it by a wide, veto-proof margin, and the Senate added it to a larger energy bill by a similarly wide margin. Clinton and Barack Obama both voted for it. However, it was left out of the final energy bill sent to President Bush, presumably because of the White House veto threat, but the reason, whatever it is, has gone unreported.

The problem with suing OPEC had been thus, per the Journal: "Under existing U.S. court opinions, the dozen members of the oil cartel act as sovereign governments when they limit oil supplies and are thus immune from U.S. antitrust laws. Under U.S. law, a sovereign can't be sued without its consent. NOPEC would fix that by allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for price fixing in U.S. courts under the Sherman Act, and to seize foreign-owned property in the U.S. to pay for any resulting damages."

The White House opposed the bill on the grounds that foreign governments might retaliate by cutting back on oil shipments, something that an OPEC official appeared to suggest would happen. Antitrust experts quoted by the Journal differed on whether that would happen, with one suggesting it would give the administration leverage to put pressure on OPEC.

--A couple days ago, I mentioned that, substantively, both Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s positions on Iran appeared to be the same, only the rhetoric was different. It must be said that in the world of foreign affairs, different rhetoric IS different policy.

Hillary Clinton's Complaint To The WTO About OPEC And Gas Prices

A gasoline tax holiday, any way you cut it, is going to be headline-worthy: It's an eye-catching policy proposal, and the fact that most economists think it's a bad idea means it also has conflict going for it. After Republican nominee John McCain put it on the table, Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton this week followed behind. But there was an international angle to her new gasoline price package, too; she would, as president, file a complaint with the World Trade Organization against OPEC.

It sounded fascinating. So, I wondered, what is the soundness of that concept? Several years ago, in 2004, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat from New Jersey, along with Rep. Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon, proposed complaining to the WTO about OPEC. It was greeted skeptically by analysts, who saw it, according to this article, as "election-year political theater." Furthermore, per the International Economic Law and Policy Blog, Algeria, Iran, Iraq and Libya are OPEC countries that "remain outside the OPEC system." And Russia, "which is known to collude with OPEC quite often," isn't a WTO member. Still, how would WTO greet such a complaint? Well, according to the Oil and Gas Journal: "It also is very unlikely that under current WTO rules the kind of legal challenge advocated by Lautenberg would be sustained. WTO offers exceptions for 'conservation of national resources,' for international commodities agreements, and for a nation's national security interests."

So, all in all, while it's an inventive idea, it wouldn't be without its limitations. On the upside, Clinton is making her proposal years after Lautenberg and DeFazio proposed it. And as the OGJ said: "Longer term, however, some analysts say it is conceivable that WTO someday could be used as a platform for producing and consuming nations to reach a mutual understanding on an equitable international oil-pricing system. But many suspect that day to be long in coming."

(We'll save her proposal to allow OPEC to be challenged under U.S. antitrust law for another day, perhaps.)

An Unrevealing Iran Exchange

Two foreign policy advisers to the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns, respectively, went after one another on CNN pretty furiously over the weekend. They clashed most over Clinton's threatening-seeming comments about Iran, a subject I've written about here. But I came no closer to understanding what Clinton thinks, and ended up confused about what Obama thinks, too. Read for yourself; see if you can figure it out.

I'm not alone, it turns out, in this confusion. Today, one of the more popular liberal blogs, MyDD, took note of how close Clinton and Obama are in their actual policy toward Iran, in as far as it's discernible. The difference is one of rhetoric, more than anything, I gather. Obama doesn't want to use some of the harsh language Clinton has used, but both have left open using any option whatsoever should Iran attack Israel.

At least the two foreign policy advisers delved into another mystery from earlier in the week, which is whether any candidate besides John McCain had anything to say about the Syria/North Korea news. Both unconditionally accept the intelligence on Syria, which is an interesting turnabout. U.S. intelligence has come under serious scrutiny because of the lack of WMDs in Iraq and the fear that the intelligence was politicized, but on the same CNN program, the only one questioning the Syria intelligence was a Republican congressman. (He didn't question the intelligence itself, but the motive in going public with it.)

A Common Logic Error In U.S. Politics

Friday, John McCain said: "I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare....If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly."

It's true that a top Hamas leader has spoken highly of Obama, but McCain's statement is, pure and simple, a logic error. It's one that is made all the time in U.S. politics, by both parties. If you attempt to link the views of a supporter of a candidate to the candidate his or her self, you are doomed by the same logic when one of your supporters is unsavory.

Now, logic doesn't seem to be the game candidates are playing when they do this. It's rhetoric – it's about winning votes. But do the same math when it's applied to McCain's supporters, and suddenly McCain finds himself in a stronge position. Does his endorsement from controversial pastor John Hagee – who has called Catholicism "the great whore," and repeatedly stated that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for homosexuality – mean McCain can be counted on to be "Catholicism's worst nightmare?" Of course not. McCain sought out Hagee's endorsement and now finds doing so uncomfortable, since he's sometimes asked about whether he endorses Hagee's views. And McCain himself on Thursday spent some time repudiating Hagee's statements.

Taken to its logical extreme, McCain's argument would mean that if he has any supporters who are murderers or rapists, he can be counted on to go easy on them, much as he implies that Obama would go easy on Hamas. Obama has repeatedly criticized Hamas, and spoke out against former President Jimmy Carter meeting with the group. John McCain may or may not be Hamas' worst nightmare. But arguments like this aren't how that point gets proven.

Back To Preconditions, Again

The biggest news of the day in the U.S. came on Capitol Hill, when the CIA briefed lawmakers about its evidence that North Korea had allegedly assisted Syria in the building of a nuclear reactor. But it barely caused a ripple in the 2008 presidential race, with the only real news on the trail coming via the revival of one of the more esoteric debates in the campaign: preconditions, or no preconditions?

The argument began in July, and refused to die, after Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama disagreed during a debate about whether, as president, they would meet with dictators without preconditions. Obama said he would. Clinton said she wouldn't. The other Democrats in the race at the time thought it was just plain silly. Chris Dodd called it "a false debate." Joe Biden spoke of "petty arguments."

The whole thing's a little like a circular firing squad. John McCain on Thursday took the North Korea news as an opportunity to attack Obama for his position. He'd previously hit the Clintons for their North Korea record when Hillary Clinton questioned the Bush administration policy. Of course, the Bush administration ended up getting a similar deal to the Clinton administration's, albeit via a very circuitous path. That didn't stop Bush from criticizing Obama's non-preconditions stance, arguing, as Hillary Clinton did, that meeting with such dictators "sends the wrong message." Has Bush met with such dictators himself? Of course he has.

And all of this is for an Obama position that is so subtle in its differences from Clinton's -- at least, the February version of his position -- that it's hard to tell the difference.

A Harder Way On Free Trade

A couple days ago, I wrote about the powerful message of anti-globalization and why it's easy for some workers who have lost jobs because of it to be leery of more. Both candidates in the Democratic primary catered to those fears repeatedly in Pennsylvania, although both had appeared to support free trade before; ultimately, it appears voters believed Hillary Clinton had more of an animus against it than Barrack Obama.

John McCain, meanwhile, took the harder way.

On the day of the Pennsylvania primary vote for Democrats, McCain stood in front of a run-down factory in Ohio to talk about the need for free trade. He proposed more job training and alternative energy investment as a solution. Later, at another meeting in Youngstown, he told voters that while he believed free trade had cost some of them their jobs, they had no choice: "I've met too many people who've been displaced as a result of free trade to say, 'Aww, it's all been good for our economy, don't worry about it,' " McCain said. "But I think the adjustment is not to erect barriers and protectionism. I think the answer is to understand that free trade or not, we are in an information technology revolution. ... We've got to be part of that new economy rather than trying to cling to an old economy."

The exchange came with a former local labor leader named Jack O'Connell, according to McClatchy: "McCain told O'Connell that he understood his 'answer is not good enough for you.' O'Connell, however, thanked McCain for 'your straight talk on NAFTA,' and indicated that although he was a longtime Democrat, he'd vote for the Arizona senator."

So, it seems, that pitch worked on O'Connell. But that may have more to do with McCain's unique communication skills than it does with the broader appeal of the message. When McCain told Michigan primary voters that "some of the jobs that have left Michigan are not coming back," Mitt Romney jumped all over him and observers said it helped contribute to McCain's loss there.

What's more, McClatchy's piece indicates that Clinton's and Obama's anti-free trade rhetoric will likely play out better in key general election states like Ohio and Pennsylvania than would McCain's. The question is whether there are enough O'Connells whom McCain can win over in states where Democrats have proven they can win votes by seeing who can be more opposed to free trade agreements. It's a tough sell.

Clinton Moves To The Right On Iran -- Or Not

In the final days of the Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton has played up her toughness on national security, airing an ad that features a shot of Osama bin Laden and a narrator who asserts "You need to be ready for anything," then asks, "Who do you think has what it takes?" The ad has garnered serious attention. What has flown under the radar, by comparison, in Clinton's national security attack is her shift in rhetoric on Iran.

Her remark in last week's debate that an Iranian attack on Israel would bring "massive retaliation" from the United States, which she repeated Monday in an interview, started it off. It was enough to make some wonder if she was talking about a nuclear attack. Despite protests from her campaign that she didn't mean she would nuke Iran, there was context to suggest, in yet another interview, that she meant precisely that. Tuesday morning, she said she would "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. This, after directly avoiding the question of what she would do with Iran if it attacked Israel in prior comments, saying that she doesn't answer hypotheticals.

If Clinton is trying to impress average Pennsylvania voters who are hawkish, this might work, but considering that some right-wing bloggers have said Clinton's rhetoric about a nuclear threat went too far, it might also constitute overkill. Given the alarm that her remarks have raised on the left, this has the potential to follow her around to other states, if it may have come too late in the Pennsylvania race. But my question is the same as this fellow's: What is her position, and how could the U.S.'s allies know from what she and her staff have said?

The Anti-Globalization Fervor Is Less Mysterious Here Than There

In the Pennsylvania primary Tuesday where Democratic voters will vote for their nominee for president, and in Indiana shortly thereafter, trade policy will be a big factor. Apparently, the anti-free trade sentiment of these voters confounds a great many observers outside the United States, if the Montreal Gazette and The Times of London's samples are representative.

I can share a personal experience about why there is such animosity in those states. I grew up in Indiana, in a town where a great percentage of the economy was dependent on manufacturing jobs, and where many of my family members had or still have such jobs. The migration of jobs from Zenith, a major local employer, to Mexico, left many workers -- particularly the older ones -- without many alternatives for making a living. It created tremendous hard feelings toward the company and yes, toward Mexico. While the job migration pre-dated the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA wasn't a very popular idea in Evansville because of fears that it would lead to additional jobs moving south of the border.

Whether it has or not is a separate question. In Pennsylvania, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues today that the state has benefited from increased exports to Canada and Mexico, with 94% of the state's exports coming from manufactured goods. Global Trade Watch, on the other side of the debate, argues that Pennsylvania has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs as a result of NAFTA and the creation of the World Trade Organization.

I know that some of the Zenith employees in Evansville found better jobs, and I know some did not. Whether the facts bear out that free trade benefits the U.S. economy in the long run, though, it's easier for some to think of the sting of a lost job now or in the recent past -- and all the hard times that accompany it -- than it is to think of what potentially better job might come next. Sometimes, those personal experiences make a more powerful impression than any economist's well-reasoned case.

Comic Books, Movies And The War On Terror

The latest issue of the magazine Entertainment Weekly previews 100 summer movies, and the U.S. film selection this season lacks a staple of pretty much every year since the 2001 terror attacks: The comic book-based movie where the clear-cut hero triumphs over evil.

There's a school of thought that the rebirth of fantasy in American film, particularly the super-hero genre but also flicks like The Lord of the Rings trilogy, was a reflection of consumers' anxiety over terrorism. Spider-Man and Superman are good guys, through and through, and they are opposed by villains of pure malevolence. But last summer, the latest Spider-Man film, while profitable, was a slight disappointment at the box office; likewise for the latest Superman movie.

This summer's lineup does have a number of comic book movies, but if anything, they reflect a hangover in the war on terror. Sometimes, literally. Will Smith stars as a super-powered alcoholic in "Hancock." "Iron Man" features a superhero who is, by day, an arms dealer and a cad. At the beginning of "Hellboy 2," Hellboy is -- that's right -- drinking too much. The recent film version of "The Incredible Hulk" was a flop, but he's been revived for this summer, and the Hulk has always been ambiguous in his heroism, struggling with rage and prone to tossing his power around with total disregard. And the latest "Batman" film stars a hero whose tactics in pursuit of justice have always been questionable. This lineup of films comes at a time when the political debate about the war on terror has shifted from "what else can we do to make us safer?" to worries about the methods the federal government has used to make us safer, from warrantless surveillance to waterboarding.

The case for a political shift that is reflected in the summer's lineup is diminished by a few things. First, the most recent "Batman" movie was a huge smash in 2005; other morally ambiguous superhero movies, like "Ghost Rider" and "Punisher" disappointed at the box office over that time frame, so maybe there is no pattern to speak of. Second, a genre of horror films commonly referred to as "torture-porn" for its graphic torture sequences -- along the lines of "Saw" -- was thought by some to reflect anxiety about the government's harsh interrogation tactics. According to EW, such films are "wearing out their welcome" with viewers. And, the cover story is about the latest "Indiana Jones" film, which has a pretty simple moral universe. It is almost certainly going to be the biggest hit of the summer, so there's obviously still a market for such films.

But it's clear that Hollywood, at least, is being drawn toward heroes who aren't perfect moral examples. Here's how the star of "Iron Man" compares the title character to other superheroes: "Whereas most of them are dealing with some extraordinary transformation, he's very self-indulgent, a womanizer, and politically unsound by most people's standards." Perhaps Hollywood, having released a string of movies that directly addressed the war on terror but flopped commercially, like "Rendition," is now interested in taking a more metaphorical route to the same topic.

With no degree in pop psychology, it's impossible to say whether this is a trend or a stretch. But perhaps the 2008 presidential candidates can get some cues about the public's views of the war on terror from how this summer's fantasy films are received.

Brushing Up On The Basics

If you're visiting this site, I'm going to guess that you're up on the basics of international affairs, the 2008 campaign or both. But maybe you don't know, off-hand, where Barack Obama stands on India. Or maybe you don't know, off-hand, where John McCain stands on Africa.

Those topics will inevitably come up here when candidates make a new pronouncement or policy proposal, but if you're looking for a one-stop shop for where everyone stands at the moment, there's a resource I'd like to recommend.

The Council on Foreign Relations, a non-profit, membership based organization devoted to promoting greater understanding of international affairs in the United States, has a Campaign 2008 section of its website.

You can find it www.cfr.org/campaign2008. It's got a storehouse of documents and speeches, not to mention essays by CFR experts on campaign-related issues. It's got a blog, too, but it's pretty basic -- just some links, usually, with no analysis. For that, you'll have to come here.

Between Gaffe Questions, Democrats Get To Talk A Little International

Much has been made of how much of the first half of the Democratic debate that aired on ABC Wednesday evening focusing on the assorted campaign stumbles of the two candidates. Fair enough. A great deal of the American political media is pretty shallow, and gets reeled into the latest gaffe or minor controversy easily. It seems the only thing I've read about or seen on television for the past two weeks is about Barack Obama's now-infamous "bitter" remark.

And even though domestic policy has dominated much of the Pennsylvania primary race so far, there were some interesting tidbits that squeezed their way into the debate.

--Both candidates promised to respond strongly to an attack on Israel. No surprise there, although Obama's views on Israel have raised suspicion among some Democratic voters, so it perhaps helped him to be able to say it on a big stage.
--Obama praised the "wise foreign policy" of George H.W. Bush. This was a new wrinkle. Obama's also taken fire before any time he praises Republicans, but so far, there's been no visible backlash for Obama saying this. That's interesting, considering that H.W. was criticized from some on the left for his invasion of Iraq, but maybe it just speaks to how much the left is upset with the second invasion of Iraq led by H.W.'s son.
--Each declared that they would withdraw from Iraq even if military commanders recommended against it. That's in contrast with Bush's declarations that military commanders are driving his policy on the Iraq war.

Much has also been made of how the Democratic primary is hurting the party's chances of winning the presidential race. But inasfar as it could help, one area would be the honing of each's foreign policy messages. McCain is viewed as having an advantage there, so the eventual victor's message had better be sharp by the time he or she gets to the general election. They just didn't get much of a chance for sharpening Wednesday night, because ABC was so unfocused on policy.

Modern Conservativism and Where McCain's Foreign Policy Stands

In the May issue of The Atlantic, Jonathan Rauch argues that John McCain is a "true" conservative because his lineage traces to the thinking of Edmund Burke, "the father of modern conservativism." And yet, Rauch notes that Burke "would caution against forcibly uprooting the authority structures of a long-tyrannized society like Iraq and expecting a mini-America to spring forth." That, of course, is at odds with McCain's stance. CQ blogger Richard Whalen writes of McCain that he is a "war-loving neocon" and invokes another father of conservatism: "Conservatives of every persuasion should stand up now and follow the late Bill Buckley’s example by declaring the Iraq misadventure Bush’s tragic folly." The same Buckley spent the waning years of his writing career being on the outs with conservatives for just that view.

The fact of the matter is, if you live long enough in the United States, you'll see what's "conservative" and what's "liberal" flip-flop several times over. The 9/11 terror attacks transformed President Bush from an advocate of a "humble" foreign policy into the foreign policy activist he is now.

McCain is a mainstream conservative, as of now, on the topic of foreign policy. He came to his more interventionist foreign policy views before other Republicans did. It's been a long evolution. But whether it's "true" conservatism or not depends on what year it is, and even what day it is.

Vice President Biden? Secretary of State Biden? Neither?

On Tuesday, former 2008 presidential candidate Joe Biden, the Democrat in charge of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, came out swinging at John McCain's national security policies. On the surface of it, and as some news organizations reported it, he did so for reasons unmentioned. But beware speeches for no apparent reason from ambitious politicians in an election year.

The wide-ranging speech addressed everything from Russia to similarities between McCain and President Bush on Iraq. In prepared remarks, Biden said: "When it comes to Iraq, there is no daylight between John McCain and George W. Bush. They are joined at the hip." McCain shrugged off the criticism, according to the AP, arguing that the current Iraq strategy is succeeding.

Political observers have speculated before that Biden is auditioning for a position in either the Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama administrations. It looked that way to more than a few Tuesday; the television station MSNBC pondered his speech as a play for vice president or Secretary of State. Biden, for his part, has been expectedly non-communicative about his desires.

The speech very well could serve to burnish Biden's resume for vice president, since he killed two birds with one stone: 1. Demonstrate his ability to go on the attack against the other party's nominee, a common function of a vice presidential candidate; and 2. Display his considerable foreign policy credentials, which could help balance the ticket for either Clinton or Obama. While they have argued extensively with one another about who is more to be trusted on national security, McCain has a very, very extensive resume in that area. Biden falls short in another vice presidential category, however, that being whether he could help deliver electoral votes from states that might not otherwise go for the candidate. Biden represents tiny Delaware, and nearby Northeastern states tend to favor Democrats. He also has other potential drawbacks, like a tendency toward verbal gaffes.

At any rate, those who live outside America -- or those who live in the United States but aren't familiar with Biden -- might still want to brush up on his foreign policy views. His office provided links for reporters to video of his speech here -- for some reason.

McCain's Interrogation Tactics Stance

On Monday, John McCain was asked once again in an Associated Press question-and-answer about his views about interrogation tactics used on detainees. Think Progress, a popular liberal blog, said he appeared confused, noting that his answer veered to a wholly different topic: "...and we cannot, in my view, torture any American, that includes waterboarding..." That, the blog correctly points out, was not the question. It is the treatment of non-Americans that is at issue. McCain, who has authored numerous laws to restrict harsh interrogation techniques, nonetheless also voted against a veto override of a bill earlier this year that would explicitly ban the Central Intelligence Agency from using waterboarding and other harsh tactics.

That McCain, a victim of torture himself and a leading opponent of it, would vote against such a bill was confusing to a great many reporters at the time, but it was consistent with his past position.

That is not to say that his position is without ambiguity. Time magazine did an excellent exploration of this apparent contradiction in an April 10 piece. It's worth reading. But even it does not definitively answer what tactics McCain is comfortable with the CIA using and which ones he isn't. There's a chance, per one theory in the article, that his current stance is the result of a bit of political wrangling with the White House, and that, if president, he would ban all such harsh interrogation tactics.

But until then, it's probably going to keep coming up; Democrats put the aforementioned interrogation bill veto override on the floor specifically to put pressure on McCain. His position's nuances will continue to be a tempting target for Democrats looking to appeal to their base (or else Think Progress wouldn't have blogged about it) and independents (per the strategy mentioned in the Time piece).

Economics Vs. International Affairs In 2008

Conventional wisdom in American politics is rarely to be trusted, but both parties are acting like the current conventional wisdom about the presidential campaign -- that the economy has surpassed the war in Iraq and terrorism as the foremost issue on voters' minds -- is correct. There is polling to back it up, not that polling is always accurate, either. But it would be unwise to think international affairs, and the candidates' views on them, won't have a major impact on this race.

Already, the Democratic primary race has shifted to and fro over international affairs issues. Hillary Clinton's advertisement questioning whether Barack Obama had the foreign policy credentials to be able to respond well to a national security emergency at 3 a.m. is widely believed to have helped her get back on even footing with Obama, among other things, in late February and early March. Once they wrap up their lengthy primary, Democrats plan to tie the war in Iraq around John McCain's ankle and keep shoving him toward the ocean. Democratic strategist Bob Shrum said as much on the television show "Meet The Press": "On the great issues before the country -- Iraq, Iran... -- he is very close to George Bush, in fact even more extreme."

And the economy and international affairs have, so far, been closely linked at times. For example: The dispute in the primary between Clinton and Obama over who is most reluctant about free trade, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Tim Starks

Tim Starks
Tim is a staff writer for the Defense/Foreign Policy team at Congressional Quarterly. He joined CQ in 2003, and prior to that, served as a Washington correspondent for the New York Sun. Tim graduated from the University of Southern Indiana in 1999 with a bachelor's degree in print journalism. He is an alumni of young professionals programs with the American Council on Germany, the Pulliam Journalism Fellowships and the Politics & Journalism Semester. Tim is based in Washington, D.C.