
The field of top-tier candidates for the American presidency has been winnowed down from nearly a dozen to three. Issues of foreign policy and national security have played little role in this process, and are likely to remain peripheral until after the Democrats select their nominee — unless voters suddenly embrace Hillary Clinton’s argument that the inexperience of Barack Obama makes him unfit for the White House.
American presidential elections seldom revolve around foreign policy. Most voters, most of the time, tend to focus on pocketbook issues or hot-button domestic controversies such as immigration, education, or abortion. The 2008 general election, by contrast, is likely to be a partial exception. Once the Democrats choose their nominee, voters will face a choice between candidates with sharply contrasting views on the war in Iraq, the use of force in global affairs, and how best to repair America’s tattered reputation around the world.
On foreign policy and national security, John McCain, the almost certain Republican nominee, enjoys one huge advantage and one equally large disadvantage vis-à-vis either of his Democratic rivals. His advantage consists of the fact that the former navy pilot and Vietnam prisoner of war is universally acclaimed as a ‘genuine hero’, a phrase Obama employed again last week. Efforts to tarnish those credentials, as the Republicans successfully did against Democrat John Kerry four years ago, stand little chance of succeeding.
McCain’s large disadvantage lies in the fact that he, more than any other candidate who set out last year to win the presidency, is linked to the unpopular Iraq war policy of George W. Bush. Indeed, at a time when polls suggest that much of the country has soured on the war, McCain remains outspoken in its defence. America is winning in Iraq, he insists; to withdraw just as success appears possible would be both foolish and dishonourable. McCain has casually said that he could contemplate American troops remaining in Iraq for another 100 years.
... contd.