McCain stepping up foreign policy heat on Obama

Blitzer: McCain stepping up foreign policy heat on Obama
Posted: 03:20 PM ET

From CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer


Blitzer: Obama and Clinton have escalated their war of words over foreign policy.
(CNN) — John McCain is not letting up on Barack Obama. Virtually every recent day, he has gone after Obama’s national security stance. He says Obama’s willingness to meet with leaders from Iran, North Korea and Venezuela is “reckless, and demonstrates a poor judgment that will make the world more dangerous.” In his latest statement, McCain calls Obama’s approach “naïve” and “based entirely on emotion.”

Obama is responding in kind. “The Bush Iraq policy that asks everything of our troops and nothing of Iraqi politicians is John McCain’s policy, too, and so is the fear of tough and aggressive diplomacy that has left this country more isolated and less secure than at any time in recent history,” Obama said Tuesday night.

Still, there is no doubt that McCain’s strategy of hammering Obama on a nearly daily basis on foreign policy is deliberate. McCain certainly feels very comfortable talking about national security. He sees that as his major strength. And most observers agree McCain would much rather have national security on the agenda right now than the economy where he and his fellow Republicans see themselves as rather vulnerable..

By attacking Obama, moreover, he is helping to frame the debate and put the Democratic candidate on the defensive. That’s the strategy for now.


I find the debate over whether or not we should be talking to the governments of the so-called "axis of evil" and other controversial leaders such as Hugo Chavez to be quite interesting. On the one hand, I agree with McCain's idea that we should be careful not to compromise our national security and that there will always be the potential of doing harm to our national image and our bargaining position abroad if we talk to the leaders of countries that have traditionally been "unfriendly" toward the United States. However, at the same time, I find myself tending to side more with the position held by Obama.

It has long been held by this nation that the American government does not negotiate with terrorists, nor does prefer it negotiate with other governments or national leaders who have demonstrated outright hostility towards the U.S. But there is a fundamental problem here: If our government has strained relations with North Korea, Iran, and other such nations, how do we expect to improve our ties (or actually establish ties) with other governments if we aren't willing to even talk to them? Simply talking to the leaders of these nations doesn't mean we have to "negotiate" in the sense that we are bargaining away ourselves or weakening our national security position.

Everyone knows the phrase "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." Why shouldn't we abide by the same policy? When you invade a country on faulty evidence of weapons of mass destruction and then proceed to stay in that country longer than the Nazis occupied much of Europe during WWII, it hardly seems unreasonable for countries like North Korea to want to build up some sort of resistance to the United States. Even if North Korea hadn't begun testing its nuclear capabilities in 2005, who's to say that the United States government would have viewed them any more favorably? North Korea's nuclear weapons testing is a simple and natural example of the security dilemma. The oppression that has come under Kim Jong Il is violently disturbing, and I would never even suggest that I support what they are doing. However, from a national security standpoint it doesn't seem very difficult to understand why they would become interested in developing their nuclear capabilities.

Given the negative reputation that Kim Jong Il has deservedly developed over the years, I don't see how the United States would expect for the North Korean president to ever change on his own. In times where we have a dire concern for our national safety and when we are elevated to such a high level of publicity on the international scene, it is imperative for us to maintain a policy where we are willing to meet with leaders of unfriendly governments. These talks must be approached very carefully and must be planned while keeping in mind the possible negative consequences. Just because there is the potential for negative backlash on the United States doesn't mean we shouldn't orient ourselves towards making progress in breaking down barriers with our enemies.