One of the central questions this election is what type of foreign policy we want. Based on their competing statements, it’s apparent that an Obama administration wouldn’t assign blame to aggressors. Actually, an Obama administration would assign blame on aggressors and victims. John Hinderaker’s post at Powerlineblog shows the intellectual incoherence of Sen. Obama’s foreign policy and the comprehensive grasp of geopolitical factors to be weighed of Sen. McCain’s foreign policy. Here’s one of Sen. Obama’s statements on the Russian-Georgian conflict:

“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict,” Obama said in a written statement. “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.”

Saying that Georgia “should show restraint” is like telling Kuwait in 1990 to show restraint after Iraq invaded. Here’s Sen. McCain’s statement:

“[T]he news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.

“The government of Georgia has called for a ceasefire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen.”

Sen. McCain’s communication has the right tone to it, calling for the US to work with the EU and the OSCE in putting diplomatic pressure on Russia while calling on Russia to “immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.”

Instead of making a more definitive statement on a path forward, the Obama campaign made this statement:

“John McCain’s top foreign policy adviser lobbied for, and has a vested interest in, the Republic of Georgia and McCain has mirrored the position advocated by the government,” said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan, noting that the “appearance of a conflict of interest” was a consequence of McCain’s too-close ties to lobbyists.

Here’s how Sen. McCain replied:

The Obama campaign’s attacks on Randy Scheunemann are disgraceful. Mr. Scheunemann proudly represented a small democracy that is one of our closest allies in a very dangerous region. Today, many are dead and Georgia is in crisis, yet the Obama campaign has offered nothing more than cheap and petty political attacks that are echoed only by the Kremlin. The reaction of the Obama campaign to this crisis, so at odds with our democratic allies and yet so bizarrely in sync with Moscow, doesn’t merely raise questions about Senator Obama’s judgment, it answers them.

Team Obama would have us believe that advocating for a fledgling democracy in an important and dangerous region is a bad thing. Whatever happened to the “We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty” Democratic Party? Has that Democratic Party disappeared forever? While I can’t say that definitely, I can’t disprove it based on the Obama campaign’s statements either.

This is another example of why you shouldn’t send a toy messiah to do a man’s job.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

6 Responses to “No Fault Foreign Policy vs. Pro-Democracy Foreign Policy?”

  • Walter hanson says:


    Part of the problem is with the exception of send our troops into some African country like we did for hunger in the 1990’s Obama has a clue how to use the military or threaten to use it, but we don’t like it. His rule seems to be when your average rational person thinks it might need to be used or threaten he does the exact opposite which is clearly say it’s not being used.

    I believe that is what encouraged Hitler in the 1930’s when people didn’t care he went into the Rhineland, Austira, they gave him part of Czecksolvikia only he took it all anyway.

    He did read his world history?

    Oh I forgot he still’s trying to figure out when America was fulfilling it’s instead of now.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • Bush has not been pro-democracy. He’s installed puppet regimes, and had the local people continue to resist in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Saudi monarchy, the Gulf States, etc., he has continued a long-standing policy of oil-flow stability over principle.

    Not that I believe there’d be a change when Obama is elected. The State Department has shown continuity.

    And to equate military interventionism with foreigh policy has been the biggest cause of the chickenhawk neocon failure, so please avoid it in your thinking.

    At least McCain has a sane stance against torture, having experienced it. He’d be a breath of fresh air, that way.

    And, Gary, any word on when Cheney’s speech at the Xcel center is scheduled? Will Coleman give his warm-up act speech? He should. He’s been mentored that way.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Eric, It isn’t accurate to call the Afghani government a puppet regime. Fledgling, yes; puppet, not a chance.

    Ditto with Iraq.

    I wonder how their governments would look compared with the US government 5 years after achieving statehood.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Puppet regimes??? That’s insulting. I’ve watched Iraq since 2003 & Afghanistan since 2001. How dare you call a duly elected government a puppet regime.

    As for the Obama administration’s “continuity”, I don’t recall the Bush administration dropping the ball when a banker walks into an embassy & tells them that his son is a terrorist & that they should take precautions to prevent him committing a terrorist act. I don’t recall the DHS Secretary saying that “the system worked” after a terrorist attack. For that matter, I only recall one terrorist attack in the U.S. under President Bush’s watch.

    President Obama has already had 3 terrorist attacks in his first year. Perhaps he should’ve been paying more attention to the existing terrorist threats rather than going into campaign mode to sell a health care bill that nobody wants.

Leave a Reply