True. But how does a junior senator gain an extensive resume in this arena? Without being appointed to the Senate Foreign Relations committee, it's hard to imagine what experience he might cite to show how seasoned in these matters he is. And yet there are millions of political science professionals whose resumes are equally thin, and yet somehow manage to predict correctly the interactions of nation-states and international institutions. There are patterns to international relations (aka foreign policy) and a limited number of basic tools to be used when solving complex problems that occur between states and governments. Each situation is different and requires any number of myriad techniques to solve it. I find it hard to believe that just because Obama hasn't sat on the same number of congressional hearings as his opponent, his decision-making ability is any less adept. In fact, exactly because Obama isn't tied to a particular way of doing things, I think that he will be able to react in a more thoughtful, probably more effective and less violent manner.
Another thing to think about is the role that perceptions play in international politics. A state must act based on the information it has available ( i.e. intelligence reports, statistics, and historical tendencies), but it must also act on the basis of its perceptions of what the other state in question is likely to do. Gauging the level of action to be taken necessarily requires a calculation (or at least educated guess) of the reaction. Therefore, any state choosing to interact with America will gauge its actions based on its perceptions of how America will react to that action. Is it not safe to say that an Obama-led government will be perceived differently than a Bush/McCain-led America?
Take the example of the current situation in Georgia. The U.S. is coming down hard on Russia for invading a smaller, democratic neighbor whose strategic importance revolves largely around oil production and transportation. If not for the wafer-thin veil of democratization, the conflict in Iraq is exactly that - except that country is far from being our neighbor, and isn't full of people who identify themselves as "American." This is not a justification of Russia's behavior - I believe that the sanctity and sovereignty be respected at all times unless human rights are being violated on an immense scale. But Russia's behavior is clearly an attempt to show the world - and the United States - that unilateral action isn't a right reserved for the U.S. and only the U.S. I have a feeling that Barack Obama's response to the crisis in Georgia would reflect this reality, and take steps toward finding a compromise that was in the best interest of both Georgia and Russia. Ethnic Russians may very well desire to be part of Russia, and not Georgia. Despite the rhetoric of John McCain (who sounds like he would have already issued an Executive Order to start WWIII when he talks about this) there is more to this conflict, and to all others, than a simple response of "we must protect young democracies." Yes, we should aspire to promote democratic government across the globe. But we must realize first hat democracy doesn't always take an American form, and second, that sometimes democratic methods reveal unrest and division within a state like Georgia, one that has been drawn together and pressed into a single mold like glass lamp glued back together. It looks fine on the table as long as nobody touches it.
Just because Barack hasn't been immediately involved in the official decision making process doesn't mean he won't understand these intricacies. Furthermore, his only high-profile foreign policy experience is marked by his refusal in 2003 to vote for the Iraq war. Like Mike Tyson after his first fight, Obama's record may be thin, but the one thing on it is a knockout. And what's more, it seems apparent that Obama will realize the need to be thoroughly and independently informed when a crisis does occur. A more efficient Security Council, alongside a cabinet appointed on merit and not party affiliation will serve him well. While the President is ultimately charged with the success of failure of any diplomatic or military action, there are more than a few hands on every policy question, a plethora of opinions to be weighed and considered. Imagine that scenario in the White House for each candidate:
McCain, sitting in the Oval Office, grinding his teeth when Iran or some other nuclear power makes a push to invade some bullshit country or otherwise upset the established order. Fighting his gut instinct to fire the missiles, he begins to steam ever-more as advisor after advisor pushes into the office with his or her informed opinion. Like an autistic fourth-grader, I'm willing to bet that McCain will flip out, start shitting in drawers, and get so mad that his bulldog-esque jowells swell up like watermelons. Getting so mad and frustrated by this flood of information, McCain kicks all of his aids out and makes the decision on his own, cackling madly as he puts on his camouflage facepaint and prepares to invade North Korea and Iran simultaneously, setting off a round of nuclear retaliations that makes Hiroshima look like Newton Center. A little far fetched, perhaps, but you get the Idea.
Barack, on the other hand, has called all of his advisors in together, and stands in front of his desk in a contemplative but strong stance. Asking each of his consultants for all the information they can provide in their relative areas of expertise, he begins to formulate several possible response options. When each of his advisors has spoken, he dismisses them all but a few close aides and the joint chiefs. Together, they come up with between three and five possible responses, each of which utilizes a number of different approaches. Ranking them from most aggressive to least aggressive, they then present these options to the re-assembled specialists and ask them to identify the immediately obvious flaws in each proposal. Narrowing the options down to one or two hybrid responses, Obama dismisses the crowd, asks for one last opinion from each of his most trusted three or four advisors, and then makes the decision he sees fit, based on the evidence that has been provided. This is the difference between a thinking, articulate, well-trained lawyer and political science, and an entrenched politician and military man whose thinking is restricted by age, habit, and interests.
One solution is reasonable and logical and provides the best chance of a non-violent resolution; the other is a predictable , hair-trigger response designed to fit the needs of a out-dated and out-moded system of international relations that sees force as the basis of all relationships between states.
Which option sounds better to you?
