OPINION & EDITORIAL
U.S. foreign policy promises dependent on advisers
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by John Sprangers:
- Free trade debate needs rethinking (December 13, 2007)
- Campaigns fail country, voters (November 30, 2007)
- Green movement missing key link (November 16, 2007)
- War rhetoric comprises policy (November 2, 2007)
- Familiar slogan to be flipped around (October 19, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Youth may find Dem policy too taxing (January 21, 2008)
- Stimulus needed for legislators' minds, not economy (January 29, 2008)
- Despite commonly held belief, Iraq-Vietnam comparisons don't add up (August 31, 2007)
- Issues, not flag pin define Sen. Obama (October 10, 2007)
- Vote "No" on war referendum (April 4, 2006)
by John Sprangers
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The result of the 2008 presidential election has implications for all sorts of issues, but if you’re like me, you’re especially concerned about the future of our foreign policy. You’d like nothing better than to put neoconservative adventurism and arrogant isolationism in the rearview mirror; you’re keen to the talk of restoring America’s image in the world. Withdrawal from Iraq may achieve this end as the Democratic field has been preaching, though it’s all a tad vague. Perhaps you don’t know exactly what your favorite candidate will do as head of state and commander-in-chief, but certainly whoever you’d pick wouldn’t do anything as crazy as invading Iraq, right?
History suggests that you check this confidence at the door. After all, eight years ago on the stump President Bush was proposing a conservative foreign policy in comparison to the brash humanitarian interventionism of the Clinton years. Specifically, Mr. Bush expressed an aversion to “nation building.”
Sept. 11 certainly threw the odds off and irrevocably changed Mr. Bush’s presidency, but his about-face remains a case-in-point that it is difficult to predict four, perhaps eight, years of foreign policy from brief campaign sound bytes. It also suggests that the only foreign policy official we vote for, the president, perhaps does not unilaterally set the agenda. As voters, how then are we to intelligently impact America’s international affairs?
Luckily, the campaign offers better indicators of the world’s most important foreign policy — but they don’t come from the candidates themselves. Little known to the general public, each of the prospective presidents maintains a network of foreign policy experts to advise them on international issues and stand ready to fill senior government posts should they prove victorious. You’re a simple Google search away from learning the campaign allegiances of some of the nation’s top political minds, many of whom are chomping at the bits to occupy the halls of power and effectively run your country.
These “policy wonks” hold huge sway in setting the foreign affairs agenda. In 2000, Mr. Bush was still taking Geography 101 lessons from Condi Rice, not entertaining grandiose visions of planting a democratic flower in the Middle East’s authoritarian desert. However, members of his advisory team, affectionately termed the “Vulcans,” were eager gardeners.
Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Zoellick, Vulcan advisors that all went on to serve in Mr. Bush’s administration (oddly, the latter two became World Bank presidents), signed a letter to President Clinton way back in 1998 calling for the military deposal of Saddam’s regime.
Their persuasiveness is troubling, but it’s also enlightening. To paint a clearer picture of foreign policy under the four 2008 frontrunners, we need only consider the philosophical leanings of their key advisors.
“No Surrender” is as appropriate a slogan for John McCain’s foreign policy team as it is for his own campaign — it’s a diverse group of realists and neoconservatives who are not shy about promoting warfare to advance American interests. While advisors Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft are known as hyper-rational and may exert a moderating influence on policy, those concerned about premature aggression against Iran should watch the role William Kristol and Robert Kagan continue to play in the McCain campaign. Two stalwarts of the dying neocon breed, each has publicly called for military action against Iran. Should they assume senior positions in his foreign policy apparatus, both our country and Tehran could be in trouble.
Not surprisingly, proud ex-CEO Mitt Romney’s internationalists mean business — trade, that is. His chief foreign policy advisor, Steven Schrage, formerly worked in Bush’s Office of the Trade Representative and served as international trade counsel for the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Also worth watching, however, is policy chairman Vin Weber, a former congressman from Minnesota and chair of the National Endowment for Democracy. Weber was also an early advocate for intervention in Iraq. I attended a lecture of his in Washington, and he still very much believes in the forceful transformation of the Middle East. It’s likely that he would push for more of the same upon a return to government.
Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy team is an impressive gathering of moderate members of the Democratic establishment. Those suspected to be closest to her include former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Interestingly, though she now distances herself from her vote to authorize the war in public, Ms. Clinton privately relies on advice from many once-staunch advocates of the Iraqi invasion, including the two above. A staff composed of individuals of similar philosophical make would not be shy about using force, nor would Ms. Clinton herself; Holbrooke told New York Magazine in 2006 she is “probably more assertive and willing to use force than her husband.”
Those working for Barack Obama include two former National Security Advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, both longtime critics of the war in Iraq. Intriguingly, Mr. Obama’s chief foreign policy advisor, Harvard professor Samantha Power, has been extremely active in supporting human rights and publicizing the horrors of genocide. Guided by Ms. Power, Mr. Obama’s diplomatic and defense apparatuses might be particularly sensitive to developing-world issues in addition to the traditional concern of the national interest. The very different makeup of their foreign policy teams could help the voter looking to make substantive distinctions between the often politically similar Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama.
The spectacle that is the American presidential campaign creates candidates that are Wizard of Oz-like projections. All of their first-person rhetoric suggests that they’d have absolute control over political life, but the reality is that they’d cede quite a bit of authority to members of their administration. The seizure of Mr. Bush’s foreign policy by executive branch ideologues teaches us that, when possible, we should pay at least as much attention to the men and women behind the curtain.
John Sprangers (sprangers@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in political science and international studies.
Anonymous (January 31, 2008 @ 11:17am):
good article
thanks for the information
Anonymous (January 31, 2008 @ 12:43pm):
WHAT ABOUT RON PAUL??
ok just kidding
Anonymous (January 31, 2008 @ 2:42pm):
"Guided by Ms. Power, Mr. Obamaâs diplomatic and defense apparatuses might be particularly sensitive to developing-world issues in addition to the traditional concern of the national interest."
It's hard to reconcile the naivete of Mr. Sprangers opinion with the statements made by Mr. Obama late last year that we should get out of Iraq now AND unilateraly attack Pakistan if they fail to more aggressively support the pursuit of Al Queda within Pakistani and Afghani borders. Attacking a small country with demonstrated nuclear weapons capability, a military permeated with Al Queda sympathisers, and fanatic Muslims trying to oust their President for supporting the US would not be 'partiicularly sensitive to developing world issues'! It would be stupid beyond the pale.
The Bush adminstration has been the world leader in mitigation of AIDS on the continent of Africa, a sensitive topic no doubt. It receives little acknowledgement in the nations newspapers, blogs, and college rags. Is this one of your "developing-world issues that needs US sensitivity" to "restore US credibility with the World"?
Your bias, Mr. Spranger, is blatant.
Anonymous (February 1, 2008 @ 12:09am):
Well it IS in the opinion section.
Great article, Mr. Spranger.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
