Foreign Policy in the 2008 Presidential Election

On November 4, 2008, a record number of voters in the United States will head to the polls so that their voice can be heard in deciding the future of the nation. As the nation prepares for a historic presidential election, Americans are interested to know where the leading candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, stand on issues that are critical to their well being and that of the country. One particular subject of interest to voters and observers worldwide are the candidates' foreign policy positions. The main difference between the foreign policies of McCain and Obama appears to be that McCain is not hesitant to aggressively pursue America's interests through the use of military power, whereas Obama favors communication, consensus, and diplomacy. Barack Obama's foreign policy is more supported by the US Constitution and historical precedence because of his plans to use diplomacy in place of military force to resolve the crisis in Iraq and his vision for the United States to be a global leader and friend to all nations.

First, it is important to understand exactly what foreign policy is. American foreign policy is aimed at "maintaining and promoting the favorable position and security of the United States in an international arena" (This Nation.com). Foreign policy deals with eliminating threats against America, protecting human rights, and giving humanitarian assistance to poor nations. In addition to the war in Iraq, the United States is faced with the problems of emerging nuclear ambitions in North Korea and Iran, and the omnipresent threat of terrorism. Having a strong foreign policy is an objective of both Obama and McCain, but the two men plan to achieve this in very different ways, with Obama being supported more by the Constitution and historical precedence.

In the early days of the United States, several of the Framers of the Constitution warned about the dangers of the country getting tangled in conflicts with foreign nations, and this supports Obama wanting to end the war in Iraq. In Federalist No. 4, John Jay had a warning for the young nation:

[The] safety of the people of America against dangers from foreign force, depends not only on their forbearing to give just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite hostility or insult; for it need not be observed, that there are pretended as well as just causes of war. (Frazier)

This quote can be applied to modern day, and challenges the reason the Americans went into Iraq in the first place. There was not really a just cause of war, as the United States sent troops to Iraq believing that Saddam Hussein's regime was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, but these weapons were never found. In Jay's words, this was a "pretended" cause of war. The fact that Obama is opposed to the war shows that he is in line with Jay's train of thought. James Madison, another of the Constitution's Framers, warned about the consequences that fighting a war could bring upon the republic, saying, "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" (Frazier). This makes sense because the executive has the opportunity to gain extra powers during wartime, such as the ability to suspend habeas corpus (ex. Lincoln during the Civil War), and these powers place limitations on the rights of the people. If Obama is elected, he will do all he can to avoid further military conflict, and as a result the rights of the people will have been preserved because he will never have had to resort to emergency war powers. The Framers of the United States Constitution were against war with foreign nations, and Obama is too.

Barack Obama's staunch opposition against the war in Iraq is supported by the first amendment in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, as it allows him to voice his opinions freely. The first amendment states that American citizens have freedom of speech, which enables them to speak out against the government's actions. In 2002, Obama strongly spoke out against going to war:

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the

full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain. (Obama)

Obama was very strongly opposed to the war indeed, as he called sending troops into Iraq a blind decision down a hellish path. His views still have not changed. In a debate against Senator Hillary Clinton this year, Obama made a statement that captures this perfectly, saying "I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place" (Ackerman). This quote shows that Obama was furious about the Bush administration's decision to send troops into Iraq, and is determined to change things once he becomes president. Obama's opposition to the war was in direct disagreement with the actions that the nation's government eventually decided upon, but thanks to the 1^st amendment to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, he was completely justified in speaking his own views about the matter.

The Constitution also supports Barack Obama's foreign policy when it comes to human rights, since the idea of habeas corpus mirrors Obama's views on the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Obama views Guantanamo Bay as violating inalienable human rights, and he has pledged to close down the detainee facility once he becomes president. At a campaign rally in San Antonio, Texas, Obama declared, "we're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus. ... We're going to lead by example - by not just word but by deed. That's our vision for the future" (Pravda). Habeas corpus protects people from unlawful imprisonment, and is a basic principle of the US Constitution. Guantanamo Bay violates habeas corpus since people who are suspected of terrorism, sometimes without concrete proof, are detained there for indefinite periods of time. The fact that Obama wants to shut down Guantanamo Bay shows that he cares about human rights, and this is supported by the idea of habeas corpus, which is a tenet of the US Constitution.

Obama's foreign policy is supported by George Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality, as Washington set an important precedent for the United States to not get involved in other nations' wars. While France was battling other European countries including Great Britain and Holland, Washington stated that America "should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerant Powers" (Washington). This is very similar to what Obama wants, which is diplomacy in place of military force to deal with the crisis in the Middle East. Obama has criticized the Bush administration's militarism in sending troops off to Iraq. He lays out his plan to deal with the global crises of Iraq, and also the increased nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran:

[I will] renew American leadership in the world, I will strengthen our common security by investing in our common humanity. Our global engagement cannot be defined by what we are against; it must be guided by a clear sense of what we stand for. We have a significant stake in ensuring that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow. (Zunes)

This diplomatic view on the country's role in global affairs differs greatly from the military perspective of McCain, who has said that he will keep troops in Iraq as long as it takes for success to become evident and the Iraqis to be capable of maintaining an organized and democratic nation. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, who had been mentioned in the list of potential running mates for McCain, said the following:

One of the reasons I'm supporting [McCain] -- he has made it clear he would rather lose an election than lose a war. He's made it very clear -- let's listen to the commanders on the ground. (Karadsheh, Pleitgen, and Tawfeeq)

This view would not be supported by Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality, as McCain is intent on continuing to use military force to establish American presence in Iraq rather than diplomatically searching for a solution as Obama would. If Obama is elected president, he will make sure that the United States makes the transition from a combatant to a neutral nation working to bring peace to the global community as Washington envisioned more than 200 years ago.

There are many parallels between the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq, and Obama's determination to withdraw the American troops is supported by the precedent of Richard Nixon pulling out American troops in the early 1970s. Many people have debated whether it was necessary for the United States to intervene in Iraq in the first place. It is up to Obama to reverse the interventionism that has been advanced by the Bush administration in Iraq. He is intent on ending the war, which he perceives to be a "dangerous distraction" from the war on terror in Afghanistan (Karadsheh, Pleitgen, and Tawfeeq). McCain, on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge that the war is Iraq is a needless distraction, and pledges to keep the troops there. This is a parallel to Lyndon B. Johnson, who continued the military campaign in Vietnam that started with Kennedy, and as a result, many more troops lost their lives and not much was gained for the United States or the global community as a whole. The Americans suffered tremendous casualties in Vietnam because they did not have a concrete plan for success when they went in, and at the end Nixon pulled out the troops after a decided lack of success. However, before the withdrawal, 58,193 American soldiers lost their lives (Harper). Things have gone similarly in Iraq, although there have been successes, the war began partly due to untrue accusations concerning the presence of weapons of mass destruction. Obama has pledged to withdraw American troops from Iraq, and this is supported by the precedent of Richard Nixon pulling out American troops to end the Vietnam War.

Barack Obama's foreign policy is supported by the Constitution, Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality, and the precedent of Nixon pulling American troops after a long and painful war in Vietnam. The Framers of the Constitution, who include James Madison and John Jay, did not want the United States to become involved in wars with foreign nations due to the possibility of military conflict overseas leading to internal corruption. The first amendment in the Bill of Rights allows freedom of speech, which was evident when Obama vehemently opposed the government's decision to send troops into Iraq. The idea of habeas corpus is to protect people from unlawful imprisonment, and this principle is violated by the detainee camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which Obama has pledged to shut down in an effort to preserve the civil rights of people around the world. Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality warns the United States to not become militarily involved in the wars of other nations, but instead to stay diplomatic and promote peace, which supports Obama's calls for communication with other nations rather than a display of American military force in Iraq. After the Americans suffered tremendous casualties in Vietnam, where the United States did not need to become involved in the first place, President Richard Nixon made the decision to withdraw the troops, which is similar to what Obama would do if he were to win the presidency; he would withdraw the American troops in Iraq, another country where there was little need for the United States to become militarily involved. Barack Obama's messages of diplomacy and his vows to once more establish America as a leader in the global community rather than just another combatant in a needless war should be very enticing for voters come November, when the citizens of the United States shall choose between two men; one who is aggressive and militaristic, or the other who is ready to do away with violence and instead turn to simple communication to achieve what is best for the nation, and the world as a whole.

Works Cited

Ackerman, Spencer. "The Obama Doctrine." The American Prospect 24 Mar. 2008. 30 Sept. 2008 . Spencer Ackerman has many credentials, including being the writer of other political articles such as "A Glossary of Iraq Euphemisms" and "Iron Man Versus the Imperialists". This particular article helped understand Obama's liberal stance on foreign policy more than any of the others because of the way it was written. There are several good quotes in this article, although it may be slightly biased since it was written from a liberal perspective (the tagline for The American Prospect is "Liberal Intelligence").

"Barack Obama Wants Guantanamo Bay Detainee Facility Closed." Pravda.Ru 24 June 2007. 9 Oct. 2008 . This source was useful because it outlined Obama's views on Guantanamo Bay, and helped prove the point that he cares first and foremost about human rights. There is no bias in this source.

Frazier, Bart. "The Constitution and Foreign Policy." Freedom Daily. 17 Oct. 2007. The Future of Freedom Foundation. 9 Oct. 2008 . Bart Frazier has received a B.S. in economics from George Mason University, and he is the Program Director at the Future of Freedom Foundation. This article was helpful because it provided specific background information about the Constitution and how it relates to foreign policy. It was particularly useful because it showed how the Framers of the Constitution felt about foreign affairs. There is not much detectable bias.

Harper, Tim. "Parallels To Vietnam Seen In Iraq War." CommonDreams.org (Nov. 2005). 30 Sept. 2008 . Tim Harper is a freelance author and journalist who has written 12 books, including "License to Steal" and "Moscow Madness". This source was very helpful because it highlighted the parallels between the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq, including the absence of a concrete goal at the beginning and also the fact that the Americans have overstayed their welcome. There is not much detectable bias.

Karadsheh, Jomana, Frederik Pleitgen, and Mohammed Tawfeeq. "Iraq Leader, Obama Discuss Future Troop Pullout." CNN 21 July 2008. 30 Sept. 2008 . The authors of this article are well-known CNN correspondents, so their information is quite credible. This source was very useful because it shows Obama's vision for a pullout from Iraq. It talks about Obama discussing a military pullout with an Iraqi leader. CNN is a very reliable source with no detectable bias.

Obama, Barack. "Remarks of Illinois State Senator Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq." barackobama.com. Obama for America. 30 Sept. 2008 . This was the contemporary primary source which supported the point that Obama's decision to speak out against the war in Iraq was constitutional due to the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights. It gives Obama's speech at an anti-war rally in 2002. Barack Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee in the 2008 election.

United States. Proclamation of Neutrality. By George Washington. 1793. ThisNation.com. 30 Sept. 2008 . This source was extremely useful because it was a primary source document that supports one of the main points of the essay, which is that Obama's diplomatic tendencies are supported by Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality. George Washington was the first president of the United States.

- - -. Constitutional Convention. Constitution of the United States of America. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1787. ThisNation.com. 30 Sept. 2008 . The Constitution was useful for the paper because it supports Obama's foreign policy stance, as the first amendment (freedom of speech) allowed him to actively speak out against going to war in Iraq. It also states that foreign policy is the duty of the executive, and proclaims him to be the nation's chief diplomat. This is a good primary source document that helped a lot.

Zunes, Stephen. "Barack Obama on Diplomacy." FPIF (Jan. 2008). 30 Sept. 2008 . Stephen Zunes is an international relations scholar specializing in the Middle East, and is a leading critic of the Bush administration's foreign policy. He is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, and has a PHD from Cornell University. This source helped to find information about Obama's diplomatic goals, and provided a few good quotes about foreign policy. There is a certain degree of bias in this source, since the author is a critic of Bush's foreign policy, so he is more inclined to praise Obama rather than give a fair account. However, the article is too informative to ignore.