Op-Ed: In A Pre-Emptive Strike Bush And McCain Co-Opt Obama’s Foreign Policy Strategies

Days before Barack Obama was to leave for a foreign tour of Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East region and Europe the Bush Administration and the McCain campaign aligned themselves with Senator Obama’s vision for the military deployments in the region.

In an astonishing turn around in foreign policy, the Bush administration has shifted its long held views on dealing with the three countries. Surprisingly John McCain’s campaign, which has been working to show that a McCain Presidency would not be a Bush third term, has jumped all aboard. McCain has supported each of the new shifts, which began early last week. On May 15, 2008 President Bush addressed the Israeli Knesset on its countries 60th anniversary. In his speech the President took a veiled swipe at Barack Obama implying that his desire to engage in Nuclear talks with Iran was akin to of appeasement given to Hitler in 1939.

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.” - President Bush

Later that same day Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said this when asked if he thought Mr. Obama was an appeaser:

“I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That’s what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.'’

At the time Mr. McCain’s aides, some of them former Bush aides said they had not coordinated with the White House on Mr. Bush’s remarks and that they were not aware of what was in the presidents’ speech. White House spokeswomen Dana Perino, in her press briefing went a step further by dismissing the notion Bush was speaking about Obama in his remarks:

I understand when you’re running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you — that is not always true and it is not true in this case.

Just two months following that speech, The White House has chosen the Democratic candidates position. On July 15th after 30 years without official diplomatic contact, Bush authorized William Burns, a high-level State Department official, to attend talks with Iran and representatives from Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany on the Iranian nuclear program in Switzerland this past weekend. McCain now agrees with the new Bush same Obama position, but tried to finesse his view:

“I have no problem with this whatsoever……..It's very clear to sit down without any preconditions with a state sponsor of terror would be a mistake.”

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who has been criticized by Republicans for suggesting talks with Iran welcomed the news:

“Now that the United States is involved, it should stay involved with the full strength of our diplomacy.”

The Republican and Democratic presidential contenders have differed sharply over Iraq. Senator Obama was not in the Senate when Iraq invasion began, but he was on the record opposing any action in Iraq especially if because it meant pulling elite forces out of Afghanistan. He has maintained that the real war on terror has always been against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. John McCain backed the Bush administration on the invasion of Iraq, although he had a break with the administration about its execution. He adamantly supported the idea of a troop surge Iraq beginning in 2006. He and many others in the media and the military say that the surge has worked. The number of U.S. troop casualties has decreased and Iraqi civilian casualties have gone down in Baghdad but have remained steady throughout the rest of the country. The diminishing number of casualties has other factors to consider. The army of Shia militia leaders Moqtada al-Sadr has taken a stand down posture, which has helped security. Also this year the Sunni militias have claimed a stake in their country and have aligned themselves with the al-Maliki government in the fight against al-Qaeda insurgents now in Iraq. This apparent good news might boost John McCain's presidential bid if not for rising casualties in Afghanistan. During the months of May, June and July, American G.I. death totals have surpassed those in Iraq in the same period. A consistent focus of Democratic opponent Barack Obama's counter-terror policy is to commit to reinforcing the U.S. effort against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan McCain and Bush have slammed Obama and have stuck to stay the course Iraq policy with the insistence that Iraq is the "central front in the War on Terror." Both in the past have resisted any timetable for withdrawal, insisting that victory in Iraq is a necessary precursor to success in Afghanistan. But now that position has shifted for Bush. Just a few hours after agreeing with Obama’s Iran policy, McCain was at it again. McCain admitted that the U.S. needed to add troops to Afghanistan, which is a shift in position for Senator McCain. The risk in such a shift in this case is greater than usual, because McCain is essentially adopting what has been Barack Obama's position for at least a year. McCain Called for Sending Three Additional Brigades to Afghanistan and Suggests They Would Come From Iraq. According to a press release issued by the McCain campaign on Tuesday morning, McCain would announce in a speech that he now supports sending at least three additional brigades to Afghanistan:

"The status quo in Afghanistan is unacceptable, and from the moment the next President walks into the Oval Office, he will face critical decisions about Afghanistan. ... John McCain Supports Sending At Least Three Additional Brigades To Afghanistan. Our commanders on the ground say they need these troops, and thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them." - McCain press release, 7/15/08

The Obama Campaign was quick to jump on McCain’s latest policy shift:

“Up until a few days ago, his view was that we haven’t diverted any effort and attention from Afghanistan to deal with Iraq. That there was no need for additional American forces in Afghanistan. That all, in effect was going well. Yesterday he woke up and came to the sudden conclusion that indeed Afghanistan merited more strategic focus – something the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been saying for months – and that we would therefore be willing to put in additional combat brigades. But then he got confused again, as to whether those needed to be American or NATO [troops] or some combination thereof." - Obama's senior foreign policy adviser, Dr. Susan Rice

Lately McCain and other Republicans have taken every opportunity to attack Obama for his plan to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, even though he suggested that Obama need to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. The McCain campaign opened the door to Obama taking this trip in the first place, even facetiously suggesting that they accompany one another. In essence the McCain campaign has really boxed itself in here. McCain had been on the attack since locking up the nomination, even cutting a new ad saying, “How come he has not been to Afghanistan?” Had McCain done just one foreign trip since locking up the nomination, it would have been much, much harder for Obama to do this extraordinary thing. Instead McCain has called it a political photo op. After McCain's last trip to the Iraq in March of 2007, he came back and tried to paint a rosy picture of the situation there. That premise quickly fell apart.

"Obama is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to Gen. Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First, you assess the facts on the ground; then you present a new strategy."

Obama made his historic trip this past weekend as part of an official, bi-partisan Congressional Delegation led by two influential Senators with significant foreign policy credentials, who are also reportedly on his Vice-Presidential short list, Jack Reed a Democrat from Rhode Island, and Chuck Hagel a Republican form Nebraska. Reed has recently mentioned that he would not accept, Vice-Presidential nod, while Hagel has not ruled it out. He Visited Kuwait first followed by Afghanistan. The Illinois Senator however, made his biggest splash with his visit to Iraq. Obama’s position on Iraq has been consistent. Is states that he would withdraw U.S. troops from a combat role in Iraq over 16 months while acknowledging there would need to be some U.S. presence to remain. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other officials explicitly endorsed Barack Obama's troop withdrawal plan:

"That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of changes."

Before Obama reached Iraq on Monday, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki came to a conclusion, according to the White House, stating that:

“Improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals.”

Searching through the thesaurus aided lingo there, it sounds an awful lot like a timeline for withdrawal, a position Senator Obama and most of the Democratic Party has been advocating. In an interview with German Magazine SPIEGEL Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki talked about his approval of Barack Obama's withdrawal plans his vision of what he expects from President Bush in his last months in office. Al-Maliki was quick to back away from an outright endorsement of Obama however:

“Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."

Al-Maliki's comments immediately hit the headlines of US papers and Web sites across the country. Reportedly, A White House employee inadvertently sent a news alert to its full media distribution list. The Obama campaign was quick to welcome Maliki's expression of support:

"Senator Obama welcomes Prime Minister Maliki's support for a 16 month timeline for the redeployment of US combat brigades. This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan." – Susan Rice

John McCain’s campaign team released its own statement by his head foreign policy director Randy Scheunemann blasting Obama for "ignoring the facts on the ground and ignoring the advice of our top military commanders." It also said that McCain and Maliki agree that any withdrawal must be based on the security situation in Iraq. Scheunemann added:

"Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama's views had prevailed."

The White House has predictably denied that they have now switched to the Democratic position, although it is abundantly clear they have. Spokesman Scott Stansell telling the media those these are aspirational goals and not arbitrary time lines based on political expediency. There’s that thesaurus again. Senator McCain echoing the White House position, releasing a statement that read in part:

“An artificial timetable based on political expediency would have led to disaster. And that progress between the United States and Iraq on a time horizon—a time horizon for American troop presence is further evidence that the surge has succeeded.”

On Tuesday July 15th, before Obama left for his trip he stated:

“George Bush and John McCain don’t have a strategy for success in Iraq, they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we can’t leave when violence is down.”

The Obama campaign may be on to something. The horizon is something you see in the distance. But no matter how long you look at it and travel towards it, you never reach it. Some strategy. Obama landed in Jordan this morning, and will spend the night in Jerusalem. Tomorrow it's off to Europe.