I am extremely concerned with our nation’s ability to protect our citizens and interests. I have been closely monitoring this year’s presidential race because whoever we choose as commander-in-chief will have a profound effect on American foreign policy.
Although I will admit that blunders were made during the last eight years, after examining the policy positions of both candidates, I have come to the conclusion that several of Barack Obama’s are greatly flawed. A few main examples of this are his general outlook on foreign policy, notably his position regarding our presence in Iraq and his openness to holding unfettered negotiations with rogue states.
The rationale for Obama’s rise is the fact that he is the polar opposite of Bush; whereas Bush was aggressive and stubborn, Obama will engage in dialogue and be open to differing opinions. This, however, is at best a superficial appraisal of their respective ideas about foreign policy.
When one delves deeper into the theoretical backing for their policies, one sees a shocking similarity. Both men’s policies are essentially based on overly idealistic worldviews. Both believe that the promotion of democracy and human rights should be the capstone of American foreign policy; they just have differing views on how to achieve this.
Bush believes that this can be attained through force, while Obama believes that the use of soft power is a better tact. At their cores, both outlooks are based on the concept of democratic peace, which stipulates that because democracies never attack one another, the spread of democracy is the key to a peaceful world.
This theory is based on scant evidence since true democracy has only been a global force for the past sixty years. As a result, both men harbor extremely unrealistic views of the world, with Obama relying too much on diplomacy.
In essence, Obama’s policies will leave us susceptible to foreign manipulation, while also advancing an unrealistic re-evaluation of our nation’s true geo-strategic situation. Obama, like Bush, will thus have based his foreign policy more on ideology than on the American people’s genuine interests.
A prime example of this is Obama’s opposition to continued involvement in the Iraq War, which he argues should never have been waged. I’m sure many realists would agree with this initial point, but many also would regard his plan for withdrawal at this stage as foolhardy.
They know that Iraq is highly fragmented and vulnerable to internal strife. If we withdraw we will leave a power vacuum that the Iraqis won’t be able to fill. This would provide sectarian militias with the opportunity to impose their will not only on their respective communities, but would also lead to an even bloodier conflict for national dominance between these groups.
Under this scenario, Obama has already admitted that he would send American troops back into Iraq to quell the violence. Why then would we ever consider such action in the first place? It is a dangerous move that would essentially cede the heart of the region to unstable rogue elements.
Here we find the most dangerous element of Obama’s policies; his willingness to negotiate with rogue states. Of course, there is nothing wrong with negotiation per se. What worries me is who Obama would negotiate with and for how long.
Several of the states that Obama would hold talks with are extremely antagonistic to the U.S., particularly Iran, which is a threat because of its lack of transparency in regards to its nuclear program.
Many argue that it is fine that Iran develop such a program because its low refining capacity leaves it with an energy deficit, thus in need of nuclear power. Yet, if they do require more energy, why not just build more refineries or invest in solar power? The only other feasible reason for having such a program would be the active development of nuclear arms.
If this is case, negotiations would only serve to forestall serious action by the West, allowing Iran to continue to flaunt the provisions of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is the game Iran has been playing with the Europeans for the last five years — and the game that they would play with Obama.
In such a situation Obama, with his extreme self-confidence, could overlook the fact that he was being used and inadvertently provide the Iranians with the cover they need to develop their weapons.
This would be a dangerous precedent and could result in a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East and Mediterranean, thus destabilizing the fragile balance of power in these regions.
That would present quite a dangerous turn of events that I’m not sure Obama could handle.
Paolo Lamelza is a senior international studies major.
a well-written, well-developed piece