Dar al-Hayat, Lebanon

 

Candidates' “Road Maps” to The White House

 

By Raghida Dergham

 

January 11, 2008

 

Lebanon - Dar al-Hayat - Original Article - (English)

 

 

NEW YORK: If the US presidential elections will in fact be a National Security election, as it is believed, they will be the center of interest, concern and expectation of the whole world because American national security has become international as a result of the nature of the threats to American security. 

 

In this phase of the elections, attention is focused on questions of gender and color, since the competition between the African-American Senator Barack Obama (Illinois) and Senator Hillary Clinton (New York), the former First Lady, represents a wonderful historical development for the US and the world. There is a great deal of enthusiasm reinforced by the potential precedent of putting a woman or a black man in the White House. The momentum is gathering for "change" in the sense of removing Republicans from the Presidency so that the Democrats will have both the presidency and the majority in Congress. Angry voices about the US' involvement in the war on Iraq are growing louder, while there is a rising resentment toward president George W Bush and his era.

 

But all that is taking place in a political context and is a far cry from a scrutinizing of policy. So when the storm of the primaries calms down, the American conversation will surely turn from demanding "change" to examining the quality of that change at a time of huge challenges to American national security.

 

At that time, experience for instance, might win over enthusiasm for untested new leadership, especially if major events occur in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran, or if there is a big major terrorist attack inside or outside the US. On the other hand, the surprise might come from the new generation and the desire for vital and fresh leadership, especially if the economy deteriorates and becomes the force behind the elections, instead of national security.

 

In any case, the next president of the US will not come to office only as a result of voting within the US, but also, as a result of the events that are happening outside the country. The contribution of traditional powers and states will be coupled with that of non-state actors, such as militias and regional and international terrorist movements.

 

It could be said today that George W. Bush indeed succeeded in the crux of his strategic policy to guarantee US national security, i.e. to take terrorist attacks, as he says, away from American cities. He has justified the war on Iraq stating that it took the battle against terror faraway from American territory. Since terror has not struck the United States since the Iraq war, Mr. Bush can claim that his policy is the right one.

Such a claim will not automatically lead voters, who are angry at the war in Iraq, to a surprising embrace of the "achievements" of this president who is hated by about half of Americans. The debate on this point is serious and inconclusive; neither side can prove whether protecting American soil resulted from the "invitation" by Bush to Al-Qaeda and its like to join battle in Iraq- which they did. Logically, and regardless of the "morality" of using Iraq and its people as a substitute arena for the war on terror instead of US cities, there have not been any attacks on American cities since the Iraq war. From this narrow standpoint, Bush can say that he has succeeded in protecting US security within the country's borders. And this is a useful basis for anyone who is close to Bush's policy on Iraq, namely Senator John McCain of Arizona.

 

McCain, 71, fought in the service of his country in Vietnam and endured torture; he fought before for the White House and ran against Bush. In 2002, he voted for the invasion of Iraq and supported the recent surge of US troops. He is firmly against   withdrawal from Iraq in defeat or surrender and opposes setting a timetable for the withdrawal.

 

As for Iran, McCain supports an alliance with Europe to impose economic and diplomatic sanctions. He says that there is no such thing as unconditional diplomacy and that the military option should remain on the table with Iran. He insists on succeeding in Iraq and not bowing to Iran; he points to Iran's proxy wars with the US in Iraq and says that the mullahs in Iran have not paid the price for frustrating US efforts.

McCain rejects the idea of relieving Iran and Syria of responsibility for harming Lebanese sovereignty and arming Hezbullah and other militias against the Lebanese State. He believes in the necessity of ending impunity of those who adopted political assassinations as a means to intervene in the domestic affairs of other states. He holds Iran responsible for funding Hamas and Hezbullah and providing weapons to the latter via Syria; he is demanding that Tehran and Damascus immediately halt their intervention in Lebanese and Palestinian affairs. He supports the establishment of a Palestinian State and affirms that there will be no solution but a "political one." He is very firm in his pledge to fight terror in all its forms, wherever it is and whenever it takes place.

 

These positions render him closer to a "continuity" of Bush's policy. If the surge in Iraq continues to work, if US cities are not victims of a terror attack, and if Bush's policy toward Iran succeeds-either by convincing it to give up its provocative policies or by standing up to it- this will boost McCain's chances as a serious "US national security candidate."

 

All of the Democratic candidates are radically opposed to the policies of Bush; they support the Baker-Hamilton report, which called for engagement, dialogue and negotiation with Iran and Syria with no preconditions, in order to facilitate an American exit from Iraq. Most of these candidates want a timetable for withdrawal as quickly as possible; most want to remove the military option off the table in dealing with Iran. Some of them, like Barack Obama, want to return today to completing the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and take this as a goal and a means for exiting the Iraq quagmire.

 

Hillary Clinton is different from Barack Obama, but remains in the framework and under the influence of the principles of the Baker-Hamilton report-this report, which seems to enchant the Democrats. She voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and now opposes the war saying that if she had known at the time what she knew now, she would not have voted with the war. Today, she wants a gradual withdrawal to begin within 60 days of her entering the White House, and a complete withdrawal by 2013.

 

For his part, Obama opposed the war from the beginning, and opposes the surge, which has proven a success. He wants to withdraw a contingent or two every month, to complete the withdrawal within 16 months of becoming president.

 

As for Iran, Clinton wants direct, unconditional diplomacy with the mullahs of Iran, but she's not ready to sit down with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. She supports the strategy of economic sanctions and wants the military option to remain on the table, but won't resort to it without congressional approval.

 

Obama, meanwhile, wants direct diplomacy and supports the strengthening of sanctions. He's ready to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions, and wants to remove the military option from the table.

 

Some people consider Obama "very leftist," but his "intelligence and honesty" render him popular, along with his "cleanness," compared to the "Clintonites," as someone who knows Clinton and her husband, the former president, puts it. They want "change", not just vis-à-vis the Republicans, and particularly the Bush family, but also want "change" in the leadership of the Democrats, as practiced by the Clintons.

One such proponent of change says that the biggest challenge to US national security lies in China's competing with the US as the sole superpower of the 21st century- provided that China be able to build a true middle class, and quickly.

 

As for Iran, it will become a friend of the US in the next two years, after the mullahs get rid of Ahmadinejad, in this view. Therefore, the type of challenge for US national security will be qualitatively different than that of the past and will require a young, different kind of leadership.

Supporters of Obama, in general, back him because he is different than George W Bush. But there are also those who support him because they find him similar to Bush, in terms of his thinking about the place and status of the US in the world.

 

There are those who consider Obama able to save the Democratic Party from its traditionalists and encourage the acceptance of a new generation of leaders, instead of looking at the Democratic candidate as a black person or a woman.

 

The Democratic presidential candidate in 1984, Gary Hart, wrote in The Huffington Post that "this is not a time to put gender or race above what is best for the country" citing the big challenges facing the US: huge debts, budget deficit, the deterioration of the educational system, corruption in health care, and declining international respect for the world's only superpower. Hart wrote, "Only a new generation of leaders can solve these new challenges, because only a new generation of leaders is unbound by old policies, old commitments and arrangements, old deals and old friendships."

These comments are directed at the "Clintonites" as much as they are at the "Bushites." However, it's clear that there are those inside the Democratic establishment who don't agree, and support Hilary.

 

There are those who dream of a return of the economic prosperity of the 1990s. Then there are women who woke up the morning of the New Hampshire primaries Tuesday and decided 'not so fast'; they were displeased with preventing a woman from reaching the White House- at least so early in the race.

 

Then there is the military establishment, which trusts and respects Hillary Clinton and finds her aware, understanding and ready to meet their requirements for national security, while she can also draw on the experience of a former president.

 

It's too early to predict what will happen in the primaries, and none of the candidates can be ruled out completely, especially among the Republicans. Logically, at this point, it is reasonable to conclude that the race for the Democrat's nomination is between Clinton and Obama.

Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani appears to be the most extremist and dangerous, ready to invade or undertake military action; he harbors tremendous hatred for the Palestinians because of his blind, extremist love for Israel.

 

Mitt Romney, the businessman with no experience in major strategic policy, fluctuates also in his stances on social issues.

Mike Huckabee looks like a "one man ball of destruction," which will destroy the other candidates, as a leading Republican put it. In his opinion, Huckabee destroyed Romney in the Iowa caucuses, and will destroy Fred Thompson in South Carolina, and Giulani in Florida. And this is exactly what McCain would want.

 

Huckabee, the "man of destruction," is also known in party circles as the "crazy man of the right." But if he can truly and seriously free himself of this impression, he might become McCain's vice-presidential choice.

 

The Republicans are banking on two things, among others, as they seek to retain the White House: the mistakes of the Democrats in Congress; and Americans' fear of putting both branches of government-legislative and executive- in the hands of one party.

According to a leading Republican, this will be a national security election for the first time since the end of the Cold War in 1988. In his opinion, US voters will be heading to the polls with national security on their minds.

 

Therefore, what happens in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan will influence the election of the next president of the United States. But to bet now on strategic policy of the candidates is premature; this is the phase of politics not the policies. The details might differ greatly at the moment, but when it comes to threats against US national security, these differences will disappear and astonish both observers and participants in the US presidential elections.