They Won’t Admit it, But McCain and Obama Agree
Yesterday, Senators Obama and McCain each gave major foreign policy addresses. The speeches have been analyzed and deconstructed by campaign talking heads and experts ad nauseum in the intervening twenty-four hours, and I don’t propose to bore you, dear reader, with more of the same.
Instead, I’d like to offer a tidy catalogue of what you might call “unacknowledged” bipartisan consensus. Here are three examples of surprisingly close agreement between the rival candidates on the state of security in Iraq today, ramping up military and civilian assistance to Afghanistan, and taking the fight to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in their Pakistani “sanctuary”:
On the Iraqi security situation and the success of the surge:
McCain:
The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America’s enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home.
Obama:
It has been 18 months since President Bush announced the surge. As I have said many times, our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.
On new military commitments in Afghanistan:
Obama:
I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions – with fewer restrictions – from NATO allies.
McCain:
Our commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say that they need at least three additional brigades. Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them.
On non-military aid to Afghanistan:
Obama:
Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall’s lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That’s why I’ve proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year… As a part of this program, we’ll invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking.
McCain:
A successful counterinsurgency requires more than military force. It requires all instruments of our national power… We also need to increase our non-military assistance to the Afghan government, with a multi-front plan for strengthening its institutions, the rule of law, and the economy in order to provide a sustainable alternative to the drug trade.
And on Pakistan:
Obama:
The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won’t.
McCain:
A special focus of our regional strategy must be Pakistan, where terrorists today enjoy sanctuary. This must end.
It’s also striking that both candidates seem to agree that more troops for Afghanistan (and, presumably, operations against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan) will have to come from Iraq. Since they both agree that Iraq has stabilized in the past year, and since they both want fewer troops there, presumably they are in agreement that such a transfer of resources is possible. On a whole lot of what seem like the toughest “hard security” issues, McCain and Obama are on the same page, even if they’re reading with different colored glasses.
It’s a shame that given such extensive substantive agreement, both candidates still insist on peppering their comments with language about how the other guy just doesn’t get it. I know you’ve got to highlight differences to win an election, and if the differences aren’t there you have to create them. But isn’t it conceivable that both McCain and Obama are fundamentally smart, patriotic Americans, with similarly sound judgment on how to succeed in the wars the current President got us into? What’s more, aren’t there are some national security issues that are so important, even Presidential candidates can suspend political point-scoring in favor of getting the right things done?
Related posts:
It’s not even the “peppering” of comments about the opponent’s ignorance that is most troubling to me. It is rather the language used so pervasively by the media, campaigns, and now the public that actively discourages bipartisan agreement in an election year.
If a candidate softens his stance on an issue and concedes points to his opponent, he is suddenly a “flip-flopper,” a moniker equivalent to political poison since it was used so effectively against Kerry in 2004. Republicans and Democrats alike hammered Sen. Obama on his apparent “rush to the center” over the past month.
I understand that Americans desire a certain sturdiness and consistency in their President, but is it that terrible of a sin to be flexible enough to incorporate new information into policy? Is it that detestable to try to find some middle ground on major policy concerns?
Simply, it may not be just the candidates that insist on partisan rhetoric. Certain language that punishes similarity and consensus resonates with the public. Should we blame the people for buying into jargon like “flip-flopper?” Should we blame the media for perpetuating this aversion to agreement? Or should we blame the candidates themselves for not being brave enough to drop the façade of separation, the irrational personal jabs? Perhaps the best response is not to blame. Perhaps all we can do is educate ourselves and reward the truly bipartisan candidate (in action, not rhetoric) with our votes. To be such a candidate, both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama have work to do.
Comment on July 17, 2008 @ 8:52 am
Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs and a nuclear arsenol. Pakistan also has the support of China. The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state?s sovereignty.
Comment on July 18, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
John, first, Pakistanis are not Arabs–Pakistan is a patchwork of ethnic groups, most of whom are Sunni Muslim, and some of whom (like the Pashtun) overlap into Afghanistan, but they’re certainly not Arabs.
As far as violating Pakistani sovereignty, the argument is very much the same as was the case for going into Afghanistan in the first place: if the US is attacked or imminently threatened by groups operating with impunity from inside another state, and if the government of that state is unable or unwilling to take action to eliminate the threat, the US has no choice but to act, even if it means violating another state’s sovereignty. Under the UN Charter, sovereignty is not absolute–it is guaranteed only insofar as states do not act against international peace and security, and do not threaten or wage war against neighbors. In this case, allowing Taliban and Qaeda to flourish would be a threat to international peace and security by omission and justify either collective action or unilateral US action if necessary.
Comment on July 21, 2008 @ 9:58 am