In a few weeks Americans will elect a new president. However, Sens. McCain and Obama represent fundamentally different paradigms on how America should relate to the outside world. Thus, the choice for Americans on Nov. 4 will also be for what sort of worldview animates American foreign policy over the next four to eight years.
For example, McCain’s view of Islamic extremism as the “transcendent challenge of our age” is just plain wrong, conflicting with current intelligence assessments. By all accounts, Al-Qaeda has been broken up into a diverse array of separate cells, or cliques; each pursuing their own local agendas tied to local political conflicts.
Moreover, even if these cells had the desire to attack the United States, they are severely handicapped by factors such as pressure from law enforcement in their homelands, their own poverty, and increased U.S. domestic security.
The McCain worldview is rooted in the Cold War, and in many ways never emerged from that era. This can be seen in McCain’s polarized view of the world, with nation-states such as the U.S. and the UK lined up on one side, and Russia, Iran and China on the other.
But McCain’s Cold War thinking can also be seen in his over-reliance on the doctrine of containment of nations such as Iran, and their exclusion from global markets. In the case of Iran and the greater Middle East, this will likely be counterproductive, as it is likely to further polarize the Middle East into mutually hostile Sunni and Shiite actors who will use sectarian rhetoric to mobilize their supporters, thus further de-stabilizing the region.
Though there is some truth in McCain’s assertion that “the world is a dangerous place,” it is much safer than it was during the Cold War, when thousands of Soviet missiles were aimed at American cities. In this regard, Obama’s worldview is much more sober and less prone to over-reaction than that of McCain.
The McCain view is fundamentally reactionary and this explains his excessive reliance on military responses, or the threat thereof. This could be seen in his saber-rattling in response to the Russian invasion of Georgia, declaring that “we are all Georgians,” without describing one threat the situation posed to American interests.
To be sure, foreign policy crises do sometimes necessitate military responses or the threat of one, but do they all?
Additionally, McCain’s neoconservative outlook has been completely discredited. Most problems today, such as terrorism, global warming and the global economic crisis require international cooperation, which is crippled by the neoconservative emphasis on the projection of military power abroad.
As a result, the McCain-Palin emphasis on American exceptionalism and its consort, American unilateralism, is not only ill-suited to today’s geopolitical situation, but is downright counterproductive.
The emergence of nations like China, Iran and Russia as regional powers heralds the closing chapter of America’s place as the world’s sole economic superpower.
The challenge for the next president will be to manage these countries’ integration into the world economy in such a way that America retains its competitive edge and its security, while avoiding a cataclysmic military confrontation as the global balance of power makes the necessary adjustments.
McCain’s thinking is too tied to the past to be able to address such complex and crucial issues.
Christopher Herrin is a graduate Religious Studies major and a columnist for the Daily Forty-Niner.
That is so funny how the Daily 49er put out a poll on who the students would vote for. In that poll, it was John McCain, Barack Obama, Bob Barr, and other. But where is RALPH NADER!!!! Is the Daily 49er afraid that too much exposure of Ralph Nader might take away Obama votes just like he took away Gore votes in 2000? Is Barr mentioned in order to take away McCain votes? This paper is clearly filled with liberal lunatics who are in the tank for Obama. More of the same. No se puede.