The following article, written by then Illinois Senator & Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, was printed in the July/August 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs magazine. This article discusses President-Elect Obama's foreign policy and his vision for America's future as it applies to the world. Read this article and reflect on what President-elect Obama has to say. Do you agree? Disagree?? Do you like what he has to say or not? Explain.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
22 comments:
Over the course of the political season people across the country and around the world have seen Barack Obama fight for the United States presidency. Some american voters took the time to understand Obama's views on foreign policy. Obama seems hopeful and prepared for the task ahead of him. Whether his policies will work or not is an entirely different story.
Obama first talks about the major issue in foreign policy, which is the war in Iraq. I do agree with his broad idea when he says "To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East." This is a necessary action if America is to stabilize a middle east that may or may not have nuclear power. I do not agree with Obama when it comes to a strategy. Obama says “We cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions.”and goes on to say “The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces…” In essence Obama is saying the best way to apply pressure is to remove it. This contradictory statement cannot occur when America needs a hard lined stance in the middle east. I believe that everyone in America believes in to things that do coincide with Obama's views. One is that "Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel..." Two "...we must recognize that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country." With American military assistance both goals can be met and progresss can be created.
Obama continues to talk about military action but not in a foreign policy way. Obama wants to build up the military "That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills." Which for Americans means higher taxes. This build up of military force is to ensure that America be capable of handling affairs not based in the middle east. Besides that Obama states in a very Bush like manor that "We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability." This is the attitude that got us into Iraq.
Obama's nuclear weapon plans are hopeful and show what a best case scenario would be. Obama has been a leading figure in the ideas of diplomacy and working with foreign nations to find a suitable end. This will hopefully continue with talks concerning nuclear power. For nations like Iran and North Korea who, most likely, will not simply agree to the U.S.'s demands a harder line is needed. Nuclear Power is a very touchy subject that could change the very structure of the world order that is why it is necessary for the government to search and destroy all real and potential nuclear power. Obama has the same stance when he says "As president, I will work with other nations to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of these weapons in order to dramatically reduce the nuclear dangers for our nation and the world." This again is a reason why America ended up in Iraq, I hope Obama has learned from the Bush administrations mistakes.
On the terrorism front Obama is looking for a world wide effort. This effort may not come do to a less than responsible China and nations who could care less in the American effort. Obama wants to take this effort to the next level and the example of that would be when he says "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar." Alliances are necessary in a world involved in such levels of globalization. China needs to play an active role as America seeks to show that "Our global engagement cannot be defined by what we are against; it must be guided by a clear sense of what we stand for."
Overall Barack Obama is a man with a great vision. His policies to achieve his goals are questionable but achievable. If a world is created through Obama's vision we will have a peaceful world. However visions are not always possible. There is one absolute, and that is the next four years will be remembered forever.
Throughout the past election season, the primary focus has been domestic: the economic crisis as well as health care. For this reason, myself, as well as a vast number of Americans have been rendered unaware of the technicalities of each candidate’s foreign policy. However, because those who cited the Iraq war as their main polling issue voted for Barack Obama, I believe an understanding to his international plan is necessary.
One of the most important points Obama makes in this plan is citing the need for both the restoration of America’s global image and a reaffirmation of the people’s trust in their government. Not only have the people rapidly lost faith, but so has the world. They no longer believe in America’s commitment to uphold democracy in a safe and practical manner.
In laying out his foreign policy, Obama states Iraq as his first challenge. I was not encouraged to see that he called for a “responsible end” to the war, because I found this very vague. I felt he stated his goals, but not an effective manner in which to achieve them. In principle, however, I do agree with this aim. I believe that Iraq should find its own peace, and not a peace that we try to impose on it, because this will lead to more discord and political instability in the warring nation. “Only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country.” This quote is very true, because the leaders are the ones who have legitimacy in the eyes of the people, and the Americans do not.
Not surprisingly, I do disagree with David’s claim that Barack wants to “exert pressure by removing it.” I believe that the type of pressure he plans to use is diplomatic, and not the conventional, militaristic meaning of the word. One criticism I do have, however, is his ultimate reliance on diplomacy for nearly all of his policies, especially when dealing with dictators and radical regimes. This may output the most efficacies, but it will be interesting to see where his plan for peaceful cooperation leads the United States. Even the military is to be transformed into a mechanism used only to sustain peace.
Since the plan is not particularly recent, I was very interested to see if any of Obama’s policy plans have changed in light of current events. One such plan was his suggestion that the United States actively cooperate with Russia. However, since the summer’s invasion of Georgia, I wanted to know if this view had changed. Another, too, was many of his plans which he cited as needing “billions of dollars.” Due to the recent economic crisis, will any of these potential programs be sacrificed?
The point in the article at which I was most compatible with President elect Obama was when he stated, “We must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan,” because I felt that someone had finally recognized the root of the problem! This battle against al Qaeda is one that should have been waged from the very start, and it is admirable that Obama is now taking the initiative.
As I have learned through years of history courses, I believe myself to be an imperialist. In this way, many plans that were proposed did please me. I believe that by aiding Pakistan in resolving their problems, we can destroy the terrorist safe haven and give the government global allies and alternative to the Taliban. Also, he cites a need for “strengthening weak states and helping to rebuild failed ones,” which is critical if we are to spread democracy and eliminate even more opportunities for terrorist networks to flourish.
The ultimate criticism I had of this plan was Obama’s plans for homeland security. First of all, he proposes spending and processes of screening all cargo on passenger flights and checking each passenger, as well as increasing security and screening the bags a second time for radiation. Not only would this be even more time consuming than current measures, I find it unnecessary. Since 9/11, no threats to the aviation industry have occurred that would warrant this kind of response. This plan seems somewhat frivolous because of the money spent and the extreme unhappiness it would cause most people.
The biggest point I took from the article was that, despite the criticism of others, Barack Obama does have a comprehensive foreign policy plan. In some manners it may seem idealistic, but high goals can propel America forward into future and to once again become a mechanism to foster democracy throughout the world. The next four, and possibly eight years, will definitely see much change on the part of president elect Barack Obama.
Barack Obama has many plans for America’s future and its foreign policies. He believes that if the people are willing to support the policies then change can be made not only for the United States, but for the world. With the change in leadership and shift from a Republican controlled government to a Democratic controlled government, many policies will change, hopefully for the better.
The first policy Obama introduces to us is his view on the war in Iraq. He proposes a policy of phased withdrawal to pressure the warring Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam to come to a political agreement. I agree with David (for once), I am unsure as to how this is achievable, as withdrawing troops would appear to give the sects more power to do what they would like without the supervision of the US. Obama’s ideas are conflicting and I believe that this is due to his lack of experience in foreign policy. Hopefully his multi-party Cabinet can guide him to further consider his plans.
Obama then explains how he would like address the conflict of the Israel/Palestine. He has a good point when he says we need to support Israel, the only country that has an established democracy. As democratization continues throughout the world, Israel would be the ideal country to support. Its influence on surrounding nations could prove beneficial to the United States in implementing its foreign policy in the future.
The president elect also speaks of revitalizing the military. It is known that a strong military is necessary to sustain peace. I agree that maintaining a strong military is ideal, but I do not believe that it should be our main focus, especially with the addition of troops. With Obama’s plan of a phased withdrawal of troops, he should revitalize them instead of adding others. Once our troops have returned from overseas, we will have more homeland security. Then we can focus on increasing the resources of the military.
Obama also states that he will not hesitate to use force to protect the American people. Perhaps he should hesitate. Bush did not hesitate to deploy troops to Afghanistan and Iraq after the terrorist attack of 9/11. This risky behavior should be considered. Wars like the unsuccessful war in Iraq could be prevented.
Terrorism is obviously a global threat, but the degree to which it can be stopped is questionable. However, when Obama says that “we must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan,” I am cautious. This implies sending troops into those two countries. This is the same thing that is failing us so badly in the war in Iraq. Obama also suggests investing in “strengthening weak states and helping rebuild failed ones.” We should first look inward; our own economy is failing us. The recession has left many people in trouble financially. Instead of investing in other unstable countries, we should concentrate on restoring our economy to its full power.
Obama also brings up a good point when he says we should work to build better alliances with Eastern Asian countries, namely China. While China’s economy is rapidly expanding, we need to hitch a ride. Meanwhile, we can use our power to influence them and show the benefits of democracy. While working on this relationship we can encourage them to use more eco-friendly methods of harnessing energy. The climate is becoming worse and worse and this downward spiral needs to be stopped. Together, the US and China as the main contributors of pollution and destruction of the climate, can work to put an end to the worsening climate.
Overall, Obama’s policies seem ambitious but achievable. If he works hard with his advisers to reform a few key points, his foreign policy will hopefully be successful. Hopefully his high goals will not come crashing down and will instead prove to be wonderful adaptations to United States foreign policy.
President Obama is inspiring hope in Americans who haven’t trusted the government in years. Opposition of Obama is often stirred from the thought that Obama lacked in foreign policy experience. His following foreign policy plan seems to reflect the needs of not only the American people, but America on the global scene. He wants to reestablish the international visionary leadership we once held. Obama is very hopeful of the future of America to provide a common security and common humanity, but some of his ideas may be getting too far ahead of him.
Obama first addresses the War in Iraq. Obama believes that we should begin the slow withdrawal of troops in order to focus on other problems in the Middle East. By identifying our allies, especially Israel, we can promote peace. The world has continually looked to America to solve problems, but at the moment we are only causing further problems. I agree with Emily on this issue because the Iraqi leaders must establish their own political identity in order to create stability. American troops are no longer, nor were they ever, a solid ground for Iraq. I found Obama’s plan on revitalizing the military a bit on the naïve side. He believes that “A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace.” Understandably, he desires the most high-tech, efficient use of the military, to achieve global stability. I thought we couldn’t achieve stability in Iraq, Barack? I don’t think the American people want to spend their money on pursuing “Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants…to defeat Al Qaeda…with a 21st century military” A military build up would only threaten such countries, not convince them to back down.
I applauded Obama’s plan for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. For years, our leaders have discussed the perils of nuclear weapons in the hands of dangerous dictatorships, but little has been done to put an end. Obama has a serious plan to place a global ban on nuclear weapons, as well as a $50 million jumpstart. He also hopes to form coalitions with Russia. One of Obama’s most thought provoking statements was, “American cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America” Relating to similar articles we have read on China and Russia, the class agreed that joining forces with these strong world powers can put a stop to terrorism, nuclear weapons, and common threats. The world powers can set the stage for a decrease of pollution, stopping human rights violators, and creating peace. Initialization of alliances is just the beginning to Obama’s vision of America. He wants to rebuild relationships with countries in which we have sent negative signals. America needs to renew the trust of the American people and lead the war as builders, not destroyers.
I also place my faith behind President Obama. Taxes may be raised, but they are raised to not only rebuild our respect, but promote stability. I agree with Mackenzie that these goals are achievable. I think that if the people back up Obama it will be a start to a completely new four years.
Barack Obama’s plan to “renew American leadership in the world” begins with his plans for the Iraq War. Obama’s plan calls for the phased withdrawal of all combat brigades by March 31, 2009 in order to focus on other neglected parts of the Middle East. I agree with Emily and Mandy in that Iraq must find its own peace and not one that we force onto it. Obama’s plan to establish direct talks with Iran is a large step forward in resolving the crisis in the Middle East. I agreed with Obama’s policy of showing support to our most important allies in the region, like Israel, and posing tougher sanctions on Iran. In order for the US to keep Iran from developing true nuclear capabilities, we must be willing to impose meaningful penalties. I am curious to see how Obama plans to bolster our armed forces by 65,000 troops and 27,000 marines when enlistment has declined in the past years. I also question whether or not Obama will be able to modernize our forces with the current state of the economy and the various domestic issues.
Obama’s plans for halting the spread of nuclear weapons are ambitious and hinge on establishing good diplomatic relations with Russia. Like Emily I am curious to see how the Russian invasion of Georgia has changed Obama’s view. I think that it will be very difficult to establish the relations with Russia that Obama seeks. Cold War tensions still linger between the US and Russia and the recent state of the US economy has been felt in Russia. Russia also recently began to establish diplomatic relations with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, who has openly criticized the US. Because these two nations are oil producing powers, they may begin to take bolder actions as they look to assert their global status.
One of Obama’s policies that I strongly supported was refocusing the effort in Afghanistan. Holding Pakistan accountable for pursuing the Taliban within their own boarders is crucial to success in the region. The protection of the American shores from another terrorist attack has been one of the few successes of the Bush Administration over the last 8 years and it is reassuring to see that Obama plans to continue to build up Homeland Security. I thought Obama’s plan for eliminating terrorist organizations throughout the world was shown in his quote; “To empower forces of moderation, America must make every effort to export opportunity -- access to education and health care, trade and investment -- and provide the kind of steady support for political reformers and civil society that enabled our victory in the Cold War.”
I agreed with Obama’s plan to establish a connection with Asia, and work to hold China responsible for its actions. Obama’s claim that the UN is ineffective is something that we have discussed in class and generally agreed with. In order for Obama to implement his far reaching foreign policy plans, an effective UN and NATO is required.
Overall Obama’s plan to restore the American image is something that appeals to all. His policy covered everything from the War in Iraq to education in Africa. This article failed to mention how Obama plans to finance his foreign policy plans. Realistically I believe that many of these plans will be financially unattainable in the near future; however I believe that Obama’s vision for American foreign policy is one that has been ignored in the past 8 years and one that cannot be ignored any longer.
After reading this article, I was surprised that Obama has not revised it based on our current financial crisis. I am in complete agreement with David when he berated Obama for his plan of "providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills."This would be extremely irresponsible for us as a nation at this time. If we want to help the world we need to fix our economy, because its crash has been having devastating effects worldwide, not just in out own country. I was appalled at the amount of money Obama is planning on throwing at the military and the funding of new groups and agencies. "My administration will immediately provide 50 million to jump start the creation of an International Atomic Energy Agency", is just another example of government spending that is being taken from the American people in a time of economic instability.
I was also shocked to find when I read that after almost every plan, Obama said something like, "I will not take the military option off the table". Although he campaigned based on his anti-Iraq war feeling, he seems to be relying on the military when his oh so good speaking abilities fail to get countries to bow to his wishes. It seems to me that though as a people we are democratic (for the time being), we want to be dictators of the world on the global scale. There are two types of interactions between peoples that are causing problems. One is within those societies and that state's government, the second is the unseen government of all the collective countries of the world in which each nation is like a citizen. Obama seems determined that the US should rule and lead this group. I am not sure that given our current methods and insecurity as a nation that we have the right to assume leadership over the world. Not only have we lost the world's confidence in us, but obviously the people have lost faith that our government can achieve this. Maybe if Obama can prove to us that we can, then we will be ready to step up to the plate.
One of the only things I liked about the article was the idea of preventing extremism in smaller countries by giving them aid. “When people have dignity and opportunity, “the chance of extremism being welcomed greatly, if not completely diminishes.”” I agree with this whole heartedly. Many peoples turn to extremism because they have nowhere else to turn and are caught in turmoil like in Three Cups of Tea, where radicalism got recruits because the local government was not supplying education to its people but the extremists did. The people were educated in radicalism schools, where they were brainwashed into believing all that jazz from a young age. If we stepped in and gave aid to support programs that will prevent radicalism form spreading like this, it will be a peaceful way of securing peace. That will be a great relief from the trend of forging peace with bullets. I found it ironic that Obama thinks that “A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace.” So why was he opposed to the Iraq war when there were valid concerns?
Not surprisingly after his talk of backing up his diplomacy with the military, Obama wants to “immediately begin work of revitalizing our military” and prepare it for “missions of the future”. I cannot believe this! Many blame the war as contributing to our financial crisis and voted for him because he wants to withdraw from Iraq, but he plans on more expansion! One quote I found very disturbing was, “America must lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites between four years”. What are we going to do with all of them? And won’t other nations, especially the radical ones we are taking the nukes away form, oppose us enforcing this? This article has made me very nervous about the upcoming years with our new president.
To start off, I agree with Emily that because the economic crisis and an interest in health care has personally touched the wallets of most American citizens, we were focused on domestic issues and presented with only a partial view of each candidates plans for foreign policy. However, now that President Elect Obama is preparing to be in office, each and every aspect of his plans for foreign policy must be looked at carefuly.
As Americans at the polls proved, war on Iraq is an important challenge for Obama. I agree very strongly with his insitance of increased diplomatic relations with Iraq, allowing our military to slowly, but with great care and planning, back out of Iraq. We have lost over 3000 of our own citizens, let alone the thousands more of Iraqi citizens in this war, and it seems that this constant presense has provided minimal success. As Obama explains, we are not a legitimate source of control in Iraq and instead we must realize that "Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country." I am hopeful that with a withdrawl of troops, Iraq will feel the military pressure lifted and can focus on prioritizing the implementation of a just society. In addition, with Obama's plan to deal with Iraq, he is simultaneously addressing the issues with other Middle Eastern nations. Afghanistan and Pakistan are the root of terrorism and you can't cure something without finding where the problem first started. As a side note, a few of my classmates were concerned about where the Obama will find money for the military. It is important to note that his increase in military support is TINY compared to what John McCain planned for...where was he planning on getting that money?
I was very impressed with Obama's plan to increase our allie's on a global scale. Critics insist that American people are losing hope in our nation, but more importantly, nations around us are losing hope as well. America was once seen as the "land of opportunity" but support for our democratic suociety is dwindling. With an increased support of World Peace Organizations like NATO and the UN I believe, as well as Obama, that the US still has a chance to regain some lost hope. America is a model nation, and should and can remain so for the future.
Lastly, I was very encouraged by Obama's plan for the environment and America's plan to deal with global warming. Both candidates believed in a cap-and-trade system, and Obama is prepared to dedicate sufficient funds to make this plan a reality. Once our emission level is down, other countries will follow in our footsteps (not carbon footsteps. ha) and focus on the importance of greenhouse gases.
Ultimately, we are dealing with problems abroad, but they cannot be solved without looking to the people inside our borders. It is the support of the American people that Obama needs to make real change. A legitimate leader can do great things, but without the support of citizens, backing his decisions on the foreign stage, accomplishments will surely be barred.
"We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed and by example."
President-elect Obama hopes to light a fire under the American people with many of his new foreign and domestic policies. He has an itch to scratch when it comes to global terrorism and nuclear weaponry, focusing mainly on the Middle East. His plans for military renovation compliment the necessity of having effective reserves here at home - something we currently do not possess. Obama also zeroes in on rebuilding relationships with nations across the globe to accomplish these aforementioned goals, as well as working together to become more green, and assisting unstable nations to create human-rights based societies.
Obama plans to remove the bulk of American troops from Iraq in an orderly fashion - not all at once - to put pressure on the Iraqui government and people. I agree with Emily here: by removing troops, I think Obama intends to reduce reliance on American troops to maintain stability, and leave it up to the Iraqui government to plant its roots and create a firm foundation as soon as possible. Moving more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan makes sense because these two countries are major Al Queda bases. Encouraging NATO to lift limitations on what other nations can contribute, as far as militia, to the effort of destroying terrorism is necessary if our efforts to do so will not be in vain. I also agree that the U.S. needs to maintain a steady flow of communication and friendship with Israel, our only friendly connection with the Middle East. Obama's plans to deal with possibly volatile nations, like Iran and Syria, are firstly, to use diplomatic measures and non-ciolent coersion. I do not think that diplomacy and alliances, created in hopes of ridding the world of nuclear power and such immense political hostility, is quite what the Bush administration did, as David stated. I believe it is the best way to deal with unstable nations who have less faith in the U.S. than anyone else. The more pressure from outside nations - especially rising superpowers such as China, who neighbor the contested nation of North Korea - the better chance the world at large has at a safer existence. Another misconception that seems to still be fooling people is that Obama is too passive for this job. He stated several times, however, that he would not limit himself to diplomacy in these situations. Rather, he will use military force as a last resort, a change I think most would welcome, considering our current militaristic blunder.
Revitalizing the armed forces of America is an important and necessary investment at this time. Unlike David and Danielle, I do not find it irresponsible or contradictory. Our military at home is currently unable to respond to a national crisis at home, as they are not certified by the government as capable to do so at this time. The best offense is a good defense, and our defense is dwindling at this time.
By forming alliances and coalitions with other nations, not only will we be able to combat terrorism with a strong hand - we can achieve great amounts in areas concerning the environment and human rights. The U.S. and China must own up to the fact that they are the two countries emitting the most greenhouse gases that are currently causing a climate crisis. If the U.S. invests in biofeuls, electric power, solar power, wind power, and so on, we can reduce our carbon footprint as a nation and profit from the endeavor by selling technology to China, and on down the line to other nations. We can also help eliminate the education deficit by working together with other nations on humanitarian missions in impovershed nations. Education, a major stepping stone in the development of a prosperous nation, will in turn help generate a healthy market with which to trade, furthering economic success across the globe.
Overall, I believe that Obama's policies of diplomacy and rebuilding America's image will benefit us in the long run. By working with friendly nations and using diplomacy rather than brute force on potential foes, America can establish itself once again as a friendly yet firm nation, admired from continent to continent. This will also benefit other aspects of life for the greater good - economy, environment, education, human rights, and so on. In the end, the most important thing for the U.S. to do at this very moment is to rebuild confidence at the home front. By mobilizing support from American citizens, president-elect Obama will be able to carry out his policies in hopes of creating a better tomorrow for all.
President-Elect Barack Obama has ambitious and somewhat idealistic plans to “Renew American Leadership.” His foreign policy covers a wide range of areas, as most foreign policies do. Although he may, as others have mentioned, be getting ahead of himself, Obama is clearly headed in the right direction.
Obama’s plan of gradually withdrawing troops from Iraq reminds me of President Nixon’s plan of “Vietnamization.” Nixon also had to deal with an extremely unpopular war and chose to do so by training the South Vietnamese to fight for themselves. Evidently, Obama has learned from the past, as Nixon’s tactic is precisely the one that he plans to use in Iraq. Obama wants to “continue training Iraqi security forces” so that they can end the civil war. I believe that this method is right, as it is their war and not ours. It is not our responsibility to promote peace in this case, although it may be in other situations.
I also approve of Obama’s approach in peacefully dealing with the enemy through “sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy—the kind that the Bush administration has been unwilling and unable to use.” Obama plans to apply mostly non-militaristic pressure to countries that pose a threat to the national security of the United States. Unlike Danielle, I have faith in Obama’s “oh so good speaking abilities.” The leaders of other countries will likely buy into his charisma and accept his negotiations more often than not, as he is truly changing the image of America. Even so, it is reassuring that Obama is not ruling out military use as a last resort.
What is also reassuring is Obama’s plan to build up the military. The possibility of coming under attack and not being able to respond effectively is frightening to any American. Those who believe that Obama will not protect us or that he is anti-military should know of his intention to expand and bolster the armed forces. These same people are likely to complain about the resultant higher taxes. I think Laura raises an excellent point when she states that McCain’s expansion of the military would have cost even more than Obama’s. Revitalizing the military is necessary, and we must pay the (appropriate) price.
A minor part of Obama’s foreign policy plan that I disagree with is his statement that, “Our global engagement cannot be defined by what we are against; it must be guided by a clear sense of what we stand for.” Obama obviously wants us to establish a more positive attitude toward global affairs. However, I do not believe it makes a difference whether we are fighting AGAINST terrorism or FOR freedom. All that matters is that we are fighting at all.
Obama’s foreign policy, while idealistic, has well set priorities. He plans to deal with threats that are most imposing to our nation at this time. And perhaps idealism is necessary for a leader to get anything substantial done. To quote a phrase that is very clichéd: “Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars.” Hopefully this is what Obama will do.
Barack Obama, being elected as the United States' President sends a message to the world that the country is ready for a new generation of leadership. Obama has new ideas about America's foreign leadership and what is vital to the world's success. He realizes that the United States depends on the rest of the world, and the "security of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders."
The Iraq War was the top priority to most voters in the election last week, and Obama has a realistic view of what our responsibilities are in Iraq. He understands that we cannot impose a military solution to bring peace and stability to Iraq. I think that he is correct when he says that only Iraqi leaders can accomplish this. I also think that Obama's intention to focus more attention to the conflict between Israel and Palestine is smart.
I think that Obama's thoughts about the military are heading in the right direction. I think that his intention to rebuild the military and commit more to national security is important, but I agree with David that providing our servicemen and women with first rate equipment an training will raise costs and taxes. On that note, I also agree with Emily. Taxes will be raised for many things, and I think it's important to focus on our national security. I think that Obama was correct when he stated that we must also use our military force in circumstances beyond self-defense. We must "support friends, help with stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities."
The halting of nuclear weapons is important to, not only national security, but also international security. The fact that nuclear weapon material is available all over the world, due to the Cold War buildup, is scary and threatening. I think that in order for a controlled nuclear weapon ban program there must be cooperation with nations like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Our country must be ready and willing to peacefully cooperate with them on this sore subject.
Terrorism is a focus of Obamas. He thinks that we need to refocus our energy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the central front in our war against al Queda. Strengthening the dialogue between Afghanistan and Pakistan is crucial to instituting trust and cooperation with the West in cracking down on the Taliban. Obama also thinks that strengthening our homeland security by investing more resources in defending mass transit, closing the gaps in our aviation security, and upgrading port security is important. I agree with Emily and think that these methods are overused already and aren't as important now as they were during the days following 9/11. I think that to strengthen our homeland security we must first focus on our foreign relations and defeat of global terrorism. I think Obama's thought to "invest with our allies in strengthening weak states and helping to rebuild failed ones" is crucial and realistic. "Deepening our knowledge of the circumstances and beliefs that underpin extremism" and making an effort to allow "access to education and health care, trade and investment to" will accomplish our goals of defeating global terrorism.
Rebuilding alliances and building new ones in the world is necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security. United States dedication to international organizations like NATO and the United Nations is imperative to opening the country's eyes to World interests, and will in result show the United States' international partners that we are dedicated to the World. Alliances with East Asia, especially China is really important because China is a growing world power with much of the same problems that we have, including problems with energy. With our alliance with China we can encourage it to play a more responsible part as a world power, and we can "build a relationship that broadens cooperation while strengthening our ability to compete."
Climate change is also an essential issue in the world's future. Climate change can create instability, disease, and famine in the world and Obama believes that it is the United States' responsibility to lead the path away from this devastation. Obama wants to free the U.S. of its dependency on foreign oil and commit U.S. citizens to use energy more efficiently.
Obama wants to renew American leadership in the world by investing in our common humanity. He doesn't want to accomplish this by forcibly imposing a regime change, but by helping to build "institutions that deliver services and opportunity ." The United States has a national security interest to reduce global poverty and build democratic states that can establish healthy and educated communities. I think that this is a good idea, but I also think that the United States as leaders of democratization of rogue states is imperialistic and sometimes unwanted, like in Iraq for instance. It also seems that Obama's stance on common humanity is more charity work, not humanitarian.
I think that Obama is the face of the new generation of leadership in the United States. I think that he has many great goals, but I also believe that some of these goals cannot be accomplished without the solution of current problems. I think the major problem that Obama must tend to first is the economy. Without the healing of the world's economy, everything else that he wants to accomplish is unrealistic. Also, in order to accomplish his goals of settling conflicts in Iraq, halting the spread of nuclear weapons, and combating global terrorism, Obama must re-establish trust and the respect of the United States as a world leader. Without the rest of the world's powers' cooperation, we will not be able to accomplish any of Obama's goals.
I have to admit that I am still not quite sure how I feel about this article and Obama's foreign policy plans. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I was surprised to find myself questioning some of the policies he plans to put forth. Obama has good ideas for securing peace and stability in the global community, but it felt to me while I was reading this as though he plans to establish the United States as a sort of world police. Although his goals for the world are certainly motivating, I have to disagree with Mackenzie that they are attainable, because it seems as if there are too many to be realistically achieved.
One point of Obama's that really stuck out for me was his plan to lend support to Israel against other countries. Once I read that I had to ask the question, "Should we really be involving ourselves in such another big Middle Eastern Conflict?" Promoting peace and attacking global terrorists are one thing, but establishing Middle Eastern allies against other countries is another. If Obama really wants the United States to play the role of peacekeeper, I think he first must start building as many alliances as he can before he makes any more enemies. I was also surprised on how much money Obama plans to spend on this foreign policy agenda; 50 billion dollars seems like quite a large budget, especially during an economic recession. I would support Obama if he plans to get this money by cutting down on government waste and using it to ensure peace and security, but if the American people will get tax increases for the benefit of the entire world, that is a different story. I also wondered where Obama plans to get 65,000 more soldiers and 27,000 marines. I would imagine that enlisting rates have decreased during the War in Iraq, so he will really need to start renewing trust in the government as soon as possible if this goal is to be reached.
On a more positive note, there were certain foreign policies of Obama's that I really think could bring a change for the better in regards to our international influence and relationships. Obama wants to pay more attention to the Middle East as a whole, rather than focus so strongly in Iraq. Like Laura pointed out, the United States government has no legitimacy in Iraq; only Iraqi leaders can truly bring peace to their country. If we take a step back and remove our troops slowly but surely, and let the Iraqi people know that we are trying to promote their freedom, it is likely that we will gain more support from them. One of my favorite of Obama's plans is to stop hesitating to talk directly to other countries, but be ready to have diplomatic relations whenever necessary. That was one of the foreign policy problems of the Bush administration in my opinion. Bush's reluctance to speak to countries without first making prerequisites just to sit down and talk was ridiculous. If the United States is going to play the role that Obama envisions, we must be willing to negotiate with other government officials, no matter who they are. I also agree with Obama that it is imperative that the United States builds and strenghens alliances with other countries, and I believe that we should start our new foreign policy by doing exactly that. These alliances especially include developing a competitive but cooperative relationship with China. We need to restore the world's trust in the US as soon as possible and this is the only way of doing so. I also think that Obama's plan for a reform of the United Nations is a great idea. If we reform the UN, less pressure can be put on the US and countries from around the world can work together to ensure peace.
Although I do question Obama's wide range of goals and whether or not they are truly attainable, I feel that he has the determination and personality to be a president who can actually follow through with as many of his plans as possible. I also believe that when Obama says he wants change, he means it. Whether or not it should be the responsibility of the United States to be peacekeepers of the world, I do believe that we are the only ones who can really do the job.
America must once again assume its role as leader of the free world. This is President-Elect Barrack Obama's goal for America in the future. I believe that he is absolutely right in that America should be in harmony with the many other powers of the free world.
Obama first points out the the world has lost trust in America. America was the country that would lead its allies in Europe, Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Middle East to creating change across the globe for the better good of people as a whole. Going into Iraq without the support of our fellow allies in the European Union made many people lose the trust and belief in America. Now, we are realizing that "only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country", as the article points out. This is completely true, America has lost its bark and must step back and allow Iraqi leaders to shape their country in their own way. I disagree with David's statement, "In essence Obama is saying the best way to apply pressure is to remove it". David, Obama states ideas such as, "We must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program. He is putting indeed more pressure on the countries that do have the same values as we do by creating coalitions of countries. These countries have a louder bark and a deeper bite when in harmony. David, can you imagine what the war in Iraq would be like right now if we had not proceeded without the support from NATO and our allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East? We would not be fighting this war alone, and we would have a greater ability to combat terrorism on a global front.
Obama believes that now is the time to build up our military as well as our military alliances and hold NATO more responsible to giving aid to causes of global security. Obama will not lead our country down the rogue path of the past 8 years. We must look at Obama's cornerstone of international relations, it is diplomacy. We must use diplomacy to strengthen ties with allies or countries with common interests. This way we can help our fellow people in Africa, who have unstable forms of government and lack of education. If we reach out to them and help them build up healthcare and education, we can foster new democracies that will flourish and not remain in poverty. America must adapt its way of maintaining its global leadership to the new world. Our enemies have adapted to attack us on a global level. We must be ready on a global level. Obama believes in rebuiding "the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and ehance common security." This is an excellent idea in my opinion. The voice and power of many is greater than the voice and power of one.
Finally, in order for America to implement this foreign policy, the people of America must buy into their leader and his foreign policy. The American people must support and understand Obama's foreign policy to be able to improve America's security and lead the world in many great changes.
After reading this, I actually really agreed with Obama on his foreign policy, but I did feel he was a little soft and naive on some of his policies. But one of the things that appealed to me right from the start was his statement that we cannot pull out of world politics. He came out and said it, and I completely agreed. He said:
"After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed and by example."
After the awful choices of the Bush administration, I really feared that the question of becoming isolationist would sweep the country again, just as it did in the 30's. With our own economic crisis, and the problems we have caused in the world, people would be tempted to ignore the rest of the world, but that cannot happen, and Barrack Obama understands it.
However, I disagreed with his policy in Iraq. As much as I feel that Iraq was a huge mistake, we cannot just pull out and let countries like Iran go in and take their share of Iraq on a whim. We made the mess, and we need to clean it up. I agree with David in that we need a hard-line stance in the Middle East. It is one of the most volatile regions in the world, and it is ready to explode over the smallest issue. A destabilized Iraq would be a problem that would alter the balance of power in the Middle East. This is a chance for America to create another Democratic state in this region, along with Israel, and I don't think we should miss it.
Rooting out and destroying terrorism is another important task that seems to have been neglected after we invaded Iraq. Afghanistan was the word in the media until 2003, when we suddenly forgot all about it in our attempt to find fictional weapons of mass destruction. But terrorism, specifically al Qaeda, has not disappeared just because we have forgotten about it. We need to form a coalition with other powerful governments in the world to fight terrorism. Most importantly, we need to gain the support of the governments of countries where terrorism is harbored, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. If we can gain government support, then we can work to end the legitimacy of terrorism in the lands where it places its roots.
In order to combat terrorism, the United States must also work to secure the thousands of nuclear weapons that currently reside in insecure facilities throughout the world. The end of the Cold War has demonstrated to the world that another arms race could end in devastating consequences. The world lived with the fear that nuclear weapons could destroy the planet in an instant should the USSR or the United States decide to use them. Today, with unstable countries like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea in possession of nuclear weapons, as well as other countries such as China and the former republics of the Soviet Union in possession, the danger of a nuclear armageddon is even more likely. Terrorist organizations are working tirelessly to acquire WMD's, and the lack of security on many facilities makes this very possible.
Another important issue that seems to have been forgotten is the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. The legitimacy of the Israeli state has been challenged since since it's independence in 1948. There are several countries throughout the Middle East that would love nothing more than to see Israel removed from the map. With the nation's status as the only functioning Democracy in the Middle East, its security is vital to any sort of plans we might have in the region. Therefore, the United States should take a leading role in negotiating an end to the conflict, and establishing Israel as a legitimate Middle Eastern state.
Barrack Obama is left with one of the biggest foreign policy messes that any President has ever been forced to clean up. He must finally stabilize Iraq, fight terrorism, secure the Middle East, end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, combat genocide, and repair the United States' image in the international scene. All of this must be accomplished while trying to repair the damage that we have domestically. However, despite the challenges, I think Obama's foreign policy plan will accomplish its goals.
Though maybe overlooked by voters in the election, as Laura and Emily pointed out, foreign policy will play a great role in shaping America’s future and its image across the globe in the next four years. I believe that president-elect Barack Obama’s foreign policy will put America back in its rightful position as a leader of the world, a role neglected by the Bush administration.
I agree with all of Barack Obama’s policies in theory, but like David I question whether they will all work in practice. I think that all of his ideas regarding foreign policy are a step in the right direction for America and will definitely improve global relations, by keeping peace, halting the spread of nuclear weapons, and fighting terrorism. I really agree with Obama’s policy to increase diplomacy and to rebuild partnerships before confronting terrorism and other global problems. We need to build a strong basis for leadership in order for our goals to be achieved and American ideals to be protected. In past years the American government has damaged its alliances with other countries, and now we must repair and strengthen them. I also think that it would be very wise for the United States to form an alliance with China, as it is growing immensely economically and is beginning to take on a role of leadership in future years. The US could benefit greatly from this relationship and could help influence China in a democratic way.
Obama’s policy on the situation in Iraq is very reassuring and will fix the mistakes made by previous administrations. American troops must be withdrawn from Iraq, but in a very careful way. Like Emma said, Obama’s plan resembles “Vietnamization” and troops will be withdrawn in stages, while Iraqi forces are trained. Like others have stated, Iraqi people are the only ones that can bring real peace to their country, by developing a new political culture and identity. American ideals have been forced on the Iraqi people and clearly that has not worked. I believe Obama’s plan to withdraw from Iraq and focus on the Middle East as a whole will be much more effective.
One part of this article that disturbed me was where Obama states, “The Pentagon cannot certify a single army unit within the United States as fully ready to respond in the event of a new crisis or emergency beyond Iraq.” It is extremely scary to think that Americans would not be protected in the event of an attack and that our military is not ready to respond. This reinforces the fact that we must reduce our focus on Iraq and revitalize our military, to ensure security. Obama plans to expand our military, but like Jenna I think that though this is a good and necessary policy, there will be a problem with enlistment. How will the government have more people enlist in the military with the Iraq war and present mistrust in the government?
Obama plans to address and fix the current mistrust and suspicion of the government. This will be extremely important in the success of Obama’s foreign policy. Without a public that believes in the government and will invest in programs, the policies will be ineffective and useless. By restoring America’s trust, Obama will be solving the root of many of America’s problems and will be able to solve further domestic, economic, and foreign problems.
Jenna pointed out that she thinks that Obama’s foreign policy plans are overly ambitious and there are too many goals to accomplish. I agree with her in a way. His policies are expansive, but they are well formed and will be beneficial to the world. I think it is time for the United States to step up and lead the world by example, and fight for freedom and American ideals. Obama’s foreign policy is attainable, especially if the US forms strong diplomatic relations throughout the world. I believe that with Obama as president, we can become the America, “that battles immediate evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more.”
After reading through this article as well as listening to countless speeches, I wonder if President-elect Obama will continue to make the vague statements/speeches that helped him to win the presidency in the first place. With that said, I agreed with him when he said,"To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end." The vast majority of people would agree with the purpose, but that is not to say that they whole-heartedly believe in the same means. I for one, would gladly accept a "responsible end," but like David, do not see the logic in applying pressure by removing it. How is it that you "pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution" when you lack the presence to enforce it? He advocated the removal of all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, but we must remember that he did/does not support the surge, which ultimately allowed for significant gains to be made in lowering violence and meeting fifteen of the eighteen benchmarks.
Obama then spoke of the U.S military in a broader sense, addressing the need to revitalize the military. To his credit, he stated that "we must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future." He further proposed a plan of action similar to Secretary of Defense Gates in raising troop levels. However, such is not possible(or preferred) if that in addition to increased social spending are implemented. For that reason, I would disagree with Laura that both an increase in military and social spending is possible. An opportunity cost will always exist between the two, and by ignoring that fact you help to spur inflation and deficit spending.
Obama then spoke of the need to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. Among his plans to work with other nations to secure these weapons, Obama specifically mentioned a need to work with Russia. Like Emily, I question the effectiveness of this strategy, when Russia is responsible for the invasion of Georgia, currently supplying Venezuela with military hardware as well as aiding Iran in its nuclear program. Noting Russia's position on the Security Council, I find it hard to believe that this country, much less the "United" Nations of the world can conduct fruitful policymaking. Though the President-elect believes this organization can be reformed, I believe that it harbors those that commit barbarous acts, and is in fact a deterrent to its stated purpose.
Overall, I believe President-elect Obama's foreign policy to be flawed. There are many obstacles that he must confront, but I find myself to be pessimistic as I reflect on his goals. The idea that we must conduct foreign policy at the whim of failed international organizations is absurd; rather we must realize our own potential. We must follow our own self interest and support those allies that fundamentally agree with us.
"To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world." I am uncertain that Obama has the backbone to lead the country though the war on Iraq. It was a mistake to go into Iraq the way that we did, but the clocks cannot be turned back in time. I agree with Obama in that we should only leave behind a minimal over-the-horizon military force to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Caeda. I'm not confident that we can put a date to the day we can pull out though. Like Obama said, we need to make sure that the Iraq government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks. He cannot push this because we are setting ourselves up for a world war if we play one card wrong.
"We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability." I disagree with David in that this is the attitude that got us into the War in Iraq. This quote reminds me of the Russian group Restore State Control that I had to speak in favor of in class. It is a smart move to build up military forces for economic reasons so as to give the United States even greater leverage in dealing with other countries as we face more and more confrontations and economic turmoil.
I enjoyed the section on combating global terrorism. He has great though process but not yet, in many areas, detail in his plans to gain world peace. "We should pursue an integrated strategy that reinforces our troops in Afghanistan and works to remove the limitations placed by some NATO allies on their forces." I was very surprised he felt this way. Obama is known for wanting to negotiate through meetings and pull out of Iraq so quickly. I could never picture him wanting to invade another country, even if it may be what’s best. I like how he believes that in our fight against terrorism we need to export opportunity through a peaceful approach. "Our beliefs rest on hope; the extremists' rest on fear." He is going to put a great deal of trust and hope into these countries which can be scary. Though, I would rather have an optimistic president than a pessimistic.
I'm hopeful to see how things turn out for our nation. In reading this article I have more confidence in Obama, and he has a driven purpose. I am only afraid he will not be able to accomplish world peace in his approach. "Our alliances require constant cooperation and revision if they are to remain effective and relevant." He relies a lot on communication between states which has not been the approach taken in previous years. I hope this approach will still prove America to be strong and inferior, though we look vulnerable during this financial crisis.
Senator Barack Obama is set to take control of a nation that faces countless internal and external challenges. He is ready to identify these obstaces and implement changes and policies to overcome them, just like former presidents FDR, Truman, and Kennedy. However, it remains to be seen whether his optimism and plans will get him as far as he hopes.
I agree with Emily and the others that while preparing for this election, many Americans may have overlooked Obama's foreign policy in order to focus on the problems most urgent to many Americans: the economy, healthcare, and other domestic issues. Fortunately, Obama realizes that throughout this crisis, we must not look inward, rather, we must seize the opportunities we have to renew our world leadership. The weakening of the American economy has hurt the economies of countless other nations, and if we find a way to turn it around, it will set a positive example to the rest of the world.
I believe Obama's plan to slowly, responsibly, pull of out Iraq can be very successful if properly implemented. As we begin to lessen the number of troops stationed there, the Obama administration will have to pay very close attention to the Iraqi people's reactions, as well as the actions of nearby countries, such as Iran. We must not leave Iraq until we are sure we have left it in a stable condition. However, I agree with Haley that it is in our best interest to foucs on the Middle East as a whole, and we can only do this if we don't have the majority of our military stationed in Iraq.
I agreed with Obama's plan to boost spending on mass transit, including airline security, as we as building up our military in order to lessen our risk of crisis and speed up reaction time in case of emergency. In today's world of weapons of mass destruction, a devestating attack could happen at any time. That said, I also agree that it is our duty to enourage the rest of the world to collect and safely destroy nuclear weapons. It is no doubt in the best interest of every country to do this, as an agressive decision of any given nation could literally destroy the world if we are not careful.
I believe Obama has very good intentions and plans for our country. However, we will not know until he is in office whether he will he able to implement them, or if the senate or other checks will block his policies, as was the case with president Kennedy. I hope that we are able to get out of Iraq as soon as respoinsibly possible, as Obama wants, in order to focus on the rest of the middle east as the rest of the world. It will also be interesting to see who Obama selects as cabinet members, as their imput will have a large impact on how we handle foreign affairs. The only thing we can know for sure is that the next four years will be very different from the past eight-- and for many people, that is a blessing.
American leadership has deteriorated in the past eight years around the world with President Bush as commander in Chief. Barack Obama, a visionary leader is now going to be the new president of the United States with several ambitious goals in mind to restore the American image and self-confidence not only domestically, but also globally. I agree with Mackenzie that these goals are achievable in the long run, but it will take time and strong leadership to carry them through. Foremost, I agree with Obama on the end of the Iraqi war. We are fighting the wrong enemy and must pursue the terrorists that harmed our nation on 9/11. It is not our responsibility to fight their domestic war; but we can’t leave immediately. A responsible time setting must be thought of and make sure that Iraq is stable with minimal fighting. Secondly, Obama is not apprehensive on using the military as a weapon on the table to ensure peace and prosperity. He does acknowledge that he must meet with leaders around the world to have their support and show that he does care about their views as well. A controversial issue I do agree with but I question attaining the means to is the military build up, I agree with Obama that we need a stronger military to show the world that we are a strong nation and we aren’t afraid to fight for what we believe in. But how does Obama plan to build up the military? I find it hard to see how he can convince soldiers to join the army to fight for. I have faith in his oral abilities, but this issue might be one of his weaker ones. Finally, on the issue of fighting terrorism and stopping nuclear arms, Obama has a strong foreign policy. Emma made an excellent comment on fighting against terrorism or fighting for freedom. We must be able to do both to ensure our stability and peace around the world. Countries such as North Korea must be dealt with because they could pose a threat to the U.S. In my opinion, Obama has a strong policy and I agree with most of his plans that he brought up. But with his strong leadership, I believe he can achieve these goals during his presidency.
The nation is in a delicate situation. Many citizens are celebrating Barack Obama's victory at the polls, for it symbolizes the end of a gruesome eight years - the Bush administration. Though he epitomizes change, we must tread carefully.
The greatest issue at hand is the War in Iraq. Obama suggests a staged withdrawal of troops. With each withdrawal we are placing that much more pressure on Iraq to act in accordance. I agree with Laura that this staged withdrawal will allow for Iraqi leaders to act independently. A few people, such as David and Craig, oppose this withdrawal. Craig views this staged withdrawal as a finality to the War in Iraq. We are primarily, if not entirely, responsible for the current situation in Iraq. I agree with Craig in that it is our responsibility to rebuild and refurbish Iraq. But we can accomplish this with slow but deliberate withdrawal. Part of this responsibility is to recognize the necessity that Iraqi leaders regain respect and authority in their country. We cannot remain forever in Iraq, but we will certainly guide.
Barack Obama does not wish to focus solely on Iraq, but on the broader Middle East. This policy vision must be considered in greater detail. The United States is not very welcome in this region. Islamic radicalism came about partially in response to the increased power of the United States. Many radicals find that it is necessary to combat US power in order to secure their lives and well-being. Obama makes a valid point that in order to continue forth in our War on Terror we must gain a greater understanding of the roots of Islamic radicalism. Having stated this, I do not think we should engage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (at least not now). The sole ally we have in this region is Israel, maybe Egypt. But we must look at the neighboring regions, which are predominantly Arab. These Arab nations do not view Israel as a legitimate country because it is the sole one that is not Arab. Therefore, if the United States is to interfere, especially on the behalf of Israel, this could create more problems than it will solve. For one, the US will increase its already negative image in this region, and will spur even more discontent, if not hatred.
Furthermore, Obama wishes to redirect focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan in our continued efforts to eradicate terrorism. Once again, we must proceed cautiously. Pakistan elected a new leader, Asif Ali Zerdari. Obama has clearly stated that diplomacy is the cornerstone of his foreign policies, and this is especially necessary if we are to focus extensively on this region. We do not yet know much about the newly elected President's policies, especially concerning the Taliban and al Qaeda. In addition, Pakistan is also experiencing internal turmoil, especially in the face of the most recent suicide bombing, targeting a hotel mostly visited by Americans. Afghanistan will also be electing a new president in the coming year. But the upcoming election aside, Americans are facing increased increased discontent in this country. Though President Hamid Karzai certainly respects America and welcomes its efforts to destroy Taliban bases, he has continuously requested of the American troops to proceed cautiously. Afghan citizens view American troops as a greater danger than the Taliban, for a great number of citizen casualties have occurred from rash decisions on their (American troops) part. Needless to say, American troops are wearing out their welcome in Afghanistan. Though President Karzai has been supportive, the new president may not be.
Though I am dubious of Obama's intended policies concerning the Middle East, there are ones that do not allow much room for doubt, at least on my part. I agree that nuclear weapons must essentially be eliminated. And I also agree, strongly I might add, that it is necessary and vital to improve our military. Lindsay rightly stated that it is terrifying not having a single unit of the army ready to respond in the face of a crisis, or a potential one. The September 11 attacks, though unconventional and unprecedented, could happen again. I do not think the US faces any such great threat, but the possibility looms, and we must be ready to respond and to act. David is concerned with the financing of this improved and increased military force. But Laura states, validly so, that Obama's defense spending do not compare to McCain's. However, in all fairness, McCain is essentially out of the picture now, and Obama is in the spotlight. However Obama plans to finance his policies, he must do so with great deliberation. Jenna, as well as several others, noted the weakened economy, and the apparent impossibility to raise taxes to fund these policies.
Whatever doubts there may be about Obama's ability to lead, he has certainly captured the attention of people at home and abroad. He recognizes the formidable task at hand: revitalizing the United States, not only internally but internationally as well. More importantly, he realizes that America cannot continue forward without the support of its people.
The campaigns of this election were long and even brutal but I still felt I had no idea what each candidate wanted. In terms of Iraq I knew the McCain wanted to increase troops and Obama wished to remove them but this was the extent of my knowledge. In the debates, interviews, and many commercials the candidates almost refused to explain the how part of their ideas. This made the article in a way a breathe of fresh air. For once I felt like I knew exactly what at least Obama wanted to do, in terms of foreign policy.
In the foreign policy concerning Iraq I like and support Obama's idea of pressure. By removing troops from Iraq slowly, it will cause pressure within Iraq to build up the government on its own to avoid the real chance of Iran coming in. This pressure may also result in the pulling together of the citizens of Iraq and a creation of legitimacy of the government.
I am a firm believer in strength in numbers and I feel that in the past 8 years the United States has lost this idea. Obama knows that we can not meet these vast challenges alone: "America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America." With the support of allies Obama hopes that we and the world can not only face such challenges as Nuclear weapons but also help weak and unstable countries along the way.
Normally i consider a countries choice of government like an individuals choice of religion, I disagree with pushing a view onto a person or a country and feel it is there decision to make, no matter what. However, the way Barack Obama explained why it was necessary made me see it in a different light: "And since extremely poor societies and weak states provide optimal breeding grounds for disease, terrorism, and conflict, the United States has a direct national security interest...We need to invest in building capable, democratic states".
In order to achieve all this Obama recognized and is prepared to deal with the underlying cause, the lack of trust for the American government, not only among the people but also among the world. For me if none of these goals set by Obama are achieved in his term(s) of presidency but this one is, which doesnt make sense but if it some how was, then I would say that an important goal was reached and the others were only a few more years away. This article set new goals and possibilities for America and gives everyone hope that maybe we can rise to the expectations of the country we use to be.
The recent economic crisis really moved the focus of the 2008 election to domestic issues. Because of this, many people were not educated about the candidates' foreign policies. In this article, Barack Obama describes in detail his foreign policies that he plans to carry out in office.
A lot of trust in the US government was lost after the war in Iraq. Obama is serious about re-building society's trust in government. I agree with Obama, that "to renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East." I disagree with David on Obama's strategy to do so. Obam says "We cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions." and that "The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces..." I agree with this strategy and think David is overlooking it. Obama is saying that the Shiites and Sunnis have to live in Iraq, so the solution should be one that is created by them, not the United States military.
Like David said, Obama contradicts himself on his plans for the US military. Obama says how he wants to remove all combat brigades from Iraq, and wants to find solutions while avoiding military confrontation. Then he goes on to say that he wants to build up the US ground forces, and that he wouldn't hesitate to use military for reasons other than self-defense. This is contradictory because the he says earlier that he wants to remove troops from Iraq to avoid unnecessary use of military.
I liked what Obama had to say about foreign policy reflecting the ambitions of American citizens. He says that our global policies should consistently reflect what we stand for as a country, not what we are against. He also says that Americans must understand foreign policy and know their role in order for it to be successful. Bush's foreign policy was so widely disapproved of, because no one really knew what was going on. Obama wants to have a definite plan every time he sends troops into harms way. With Bush's plan, there was no end in sight to US troops in Iraq, but Obama wants to create a visible end to the war in Iraq. If this is successful, it will get much higher approval ratings from US citizens.
The theory behind Obama's vision for energy and fuel in the US is good. He wants to remove US independence on foreign oil by using energy more efficiently in cars, factories, and homes, and rely on renewable sources of energy and biofuels. If it works, then great, but I think it will be very difficult to get Americans to participate on a large scale.
I think that this article is what the vast majority of Americans want to hear. If successful, Obama's policies will lead to a peaceful and prosperous world. His visions are good on paper, but the reality is that many of them may not be possible.
I do not disagree with the fact that McCain DID have a larger spending plan for the war in Iraq, but at least he was up front about it. With Obama, he simply has said that he wants to slowly withdraw the troops, but did not make the actual budget a major part of his campaign.
I feel that those who place too much stock in talking and diplomacy are unwise. Rationality and understanding across cultures should always be attempted, but should not be relied upon. There is only so far talking can get. Therefore, I support Obama's reliance on the military, but must express my frustration that this was not put forth in his campaign.
Post a Comment