Friday, October 19, 2007

# Posted 11:24 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

McCAIN VS. HILLARY IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I haven't read their essays yet, but Dan Drezner says that they are the two best so far and that McCain's is the best of any Republican. In previous issues, Obama, Edwards, Romney and Giuliani have published their essays on US strategy.

As Dan correctly points out, it is each campaign's foreign policy staff that actually writes the essay. But the staffs write what their candidates want, and the candidates approve only what they want, so this is not a trivial exercise. To this day, Condi's article from the 2000 campaign is frequently cited (if only to remind the audience that she once was a realist).

Also, Dan's post about "engagement" as the fairy dust of foreign policy is a must. He's writing about John Edwards, but the lesson applies far more broadly.

Labels: , ,

(5) opinions -- Add your opinion

You're way out of your depth with this McCain thing.

He needs to lose some weight, stop being senile and make some major money. And that's just not going to happen.

Why do you like him again? 'Cause his foreign policy perspective is the blah blah blah, and foreign policy is the biggest issue this election cycle blah blah blah.'

Isn't it always? Must we elect another 'I hate Russia', 'I'm a toughguy, etc' individual who will have some idiosyncratic perspective on the world which will lead to some bizarre foreign policy which has NOTHING to do with with whatever they (read: their campaign staff) write in Foreign Affairs magazine.

Oh well, let's keep the homeland safe!
Um, thanks for the constructive criticism?
At this point we the armchair pundits see diametrically opposite views on the war posted by Republican and Democratic websites. The GOP/Kristols say flatly we are winning, the enemy is coming over to the government in every part of the country, but then they hedge by saying we must not be overconfident because the bad guys can always find another sacred mosque to blow up, slowing the progress. The Democrats say it is hopeless, not worth another life or another dollar, will inevitably become a protracted civil war followed by Iranian invasion, and then they hedge, also-- first in the NY Times by the two Brookings guys, and lately in the WaPo by Karen DeYoung and associate. The claim we are winning seems more specific and better documented than the claim it's all hopeless. Also, the two hedges, "overconfidence" and "we might be wrong," tend to give more weight to a likelihood of U.S. victory. Both sides have been invested in victory or defeat for several years and find it difficult to cross over, but when you read everything the cause of Free Iraq now appears on top, despite the best efforts of the media, the academy and most Democrats.
They are both controlled by zionists (as are all the other candidates except Ron Paul). Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars. Iraq is the beginning. As we commit war-crimes in Baghdad, the US gov't commits treason at home by opening mail, eliminating habeas corpus, using the judiciary to steal private lands, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon and Wikipedia, conducting warrantless wiretaps and engaging in illegal wars on behalf of AIPAC's 'money-men'. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran.. Then we'll invade Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon (again) then ....
Anonymous 1:15:

I am shocked that They leave Truth Tellers such as you out to spread the word of the resistance.

Anonymous 1:15 are you there?

Anonymous 1:15 are you there?

Anonymous 1:15 are you there?

Oh well! they must have got you.
Post a Comment