Looking in or Looking Out?

It's hard to imagine that the next President of the United States will make any dramatic changes in domestic policies. The hotly debated health care issue will be subjected to political compromises, economic revelations, a myriad of additional detailed studies and hearings, significant debate in Congress and likely moves by one side or the other to derail legislation or significantly adjust any sweeping changes to present policies. The home foreclosure problem will gradually move from front page news to recesses deeper in thought and action. Seems it already is receiving less notice. There will more likely be some smaller domestic shifts one way or the other, perhaps some trends will continue or be reversed and some citizens will pay more taxes and others less, but overall the domestic economic front will probably remain relatively stable, or at least tolerable, and will be influenced more by external events than by internal occurrences.

However, foreign policy initiatives, activities and responses would seem to be the area where the greatest change might occur. This arena is the least predictable, most turbulent and for every action or reaction there will be a response that could effect America's future in dramatic ways.

Regardless of what is said by the candidates, actual events in Iraq and Afghanistan will dictate greater or lesser involvement by the United States. Even if withdrawal from Iraq is undertaken in earnest, it will take years to disengage and even that withdrawal could be sidelined by currently unknown or unexpected events. A major terrorist strike against a target in the United States could potentially have devastating effects on our economy and significantly alter day-to-day activities. Events in the Balkans, Middle East, Russia, China, or eastern Europe could provoke international incidents that would involve the US. Any threat to oil resources which are essential to America could provoke a crisis. It sure appears as if the potential for difficulties in the future reside outside the boundaries of the United States.

So why don't we hear more from our Presidential candidates about how the next President might address foreign policy issues? What will be the philosophy? Will it be "peace through strength", "peace through negotiation", "don't tread on me", "mutually assured destruction", "can't we all just get along" or some other phrase that describes a pathway? Are we going to adopt a meeker attitude that suggests differences between nations can be ironed out in the halls of the United Nations or will we depend on other enduring relationships and alliances? What will we do about the migrations across our southern border after a fence is built? Is that just a redistribution of people or is it an invasion? Will we continue to aggressively lead the world or will we assume a lessor role as some sort of facilitator? Is there such a thing as bad people and the resultant bad nations or have actions and activities by others caused them to resort to violence or hatred? Are American soldiers deployed in support of the United States government good guys helping to establish democratic ideals for the millions that sported the purple fingers of democracy in action or are they the thugs of "government gone wild?"

It sure seems like our Presidential candidates should reveal a bit more about how they will address foreign policy issues. On the other hand, perhaps America is satisfied with the absence of serious debate about the intricacies involved. It is instructive to note who the candidate's chief foreign policy advisors are.

For Clinton, the advisors include Richard Holbrook, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger, Lee Feinstein, Wesley Clark and Joseph Wilson, the embattled former ambassador who's wife Valarie Plame was the center of a much publicized story. Those are familiar names and with the exception of Clark these advisors could be characterized as somewhat hawkish.

For Obama, advisors are Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor, Joseph Cirincione, Senior Fellow and Director for Nuclear Policy at the Center for American Progress, Anthony Lake, a former national security adviser, former Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice, former counter-terrorist czar Richard Clarke, human rights scholar Samantha Power, and retired General Merill McPeak. These advisors are not quite as well known as the Clinton group and are a bit more diverse, although as a group lean toward a more pacifistic bent.

McCain has the most extensive and diverse group of foreign policy advisors which include Henry Kissinger, Former U.S. Secretary of State, William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Randy Scheunemann, a defense and foreign-policy consultant, Gary Schmitt, who served under President Reagan as executive director of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Stephen Biegun, former security adviser to Senator Bill Frist, Brent Scowcroft, National security advisor under President George H.W. Bush, Colin Powell, former Army General and Secretary of State, Niall Ferguson, a professor of history at Harvard, Barry McCaffrey, retired Army general and former drug czar under President Clinton, Robert Zoellick, former Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State, Ralph Peters, retired Army officer and author, and a number of others that have a broad range of education, experiences and perspectives. This group of advisors might be described as the most pragmatic and least idealistic of all listed.

It sure seems to this writer that the Presidential candidates should be "looking out" and debating more about their vision in the foreign policy arena as that will have a larger and more long term impact on the lives and security of Americans more than any other Presidential policy.

Absent any in-depth revelations by the candidates, one can catch a glimpse of where America might be headed by examining the advisors who will have the ear of the future President.