September 18, 2007
Column: Many contenders but just one voice
I have just spent a week in Washington, where many people assured me that a bitter and partisan debate is taking place over American foreign policy. I am not so sure. Having dutifully read the pronouncements of the leading candidates for the presidency – and talked to many of their advisers – I have drafted the following speech, which I am confident could be given by any of the main Republican or Democratic contenders:
‘‘My fellow Americans, our troops in Iraq have performed heroically and have done everything that has been asked of them. Under my presidency I will seek to bring our brave men and women home. But there will be no precipitate withdrawal from Iraq. We will secure our vital national interests.
“Our nation faces awesome challenges in Iraq and in the struggle against global jihadism. But I take inspiration from the ‘greatest generation’, which won the second world war, and from the statesmen who led us to victory in the cold war – men like George C. Marshall and Harry Truman.
The remainder of this week’s column can be read here (FT.com subscribers only). Comments can be made below.
From my Third-Worlder’s perspective, one American president’s foreign policy looks very much like another.
Didn’t the Democrats instigate the Vietnam war (Gulf of Tonkin) and didn’t both they and the Republicans engage in an orgy of bombing and blood-letting of the Vietnamese?
Haven’t successive US administrations succumbed thoroughly to “The Lobby” and subordinated US interests to that of Israel whilst trampling on the rights of the Palestinians?
By the time a US politician gets to “achieve” high office, he is so beholden to various interest groups and lobbies and he is so surrounded by partisan “advisers” that he is essentially a tool of them.
No foreigner should have any illusion about what the electoral charade in the US might imply for them. The nature of the beast remains the same, regardless of what mask you put on its face.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 18th, 2007 at 2:46 pm | Report this commentI see no contradiction, nor surprise in the fact that there might be a speech text that all presidential candidates could utter.
If you take out all points of conflicts, one can even write a speech that Bush and Ahmadinejad can both make, for example such as: “Dear fellow countrymen, let’s work together towards our country prosperity and welfare of our nation.”
What you say in public should not necessarily be true or full of new insight. You can say something very generic and it will be OK.
So, it is not clear what is the point that you are trying to make - that they don’t really have differences in approach to Iraq war? I think that they do, but you can’t say everything in public, and also once in certain situation, you only have to do certain things to get out of it.
For example, when the entire America was hysterically shouting “yes, let’s bash them” I though that I am the only one in the country who is saying that this is a mistake.
It is still a mistake, but now it looks like I am in a Republican camp, because I am saying that they should stay now, but that there must be a clear exit strategy.
Unfortunately for common people, this strategy must not be visible because its mere visibility plays to America opponents side. It is not just about terrorists, every opponent would get most of the other guy situation within certain limits.
And, speaking about friends and opponents, Russia has been warning America not to enter into Iraq, because it would be a mistake. I think that now even the most anti-Russian observer would agree that it was the advice a true friend would make, since friendship is not about saying pleasant things to get closer, but rather is about saying things that would do good, even if it is an unpleasant truth or thought that would not be welcome.
And, in the light of this discussion, I read an article in Economist recently suggesting that Russia profits from Middle East unease and is going to prosper on unrest there, consequently Russia has no interest in peace in Middle East. This argument is clearly void, considering that Russia was advising America not to enter into Iraq war, although tthe effect of this was quite visible. Only an idiot could think that there might be a blitzkrieg in Iraq.
Posted by: Seva Snape | September 19th, 2007 at 2:24 am | Report this comment