Platform Five: National Security and Foreign Policy

Greetings

The problem that appears in looking at the foreign policy of the presidential candidates is not necessarily their stances on the platform, but more over the platform itself. I put this for the reason of attempting to not make John McCain look like a war-monger, as the information I have of his stance is on national defense and not simply foreign policy.

Speaking of John McCain, the Republican candidate’s national defense platform supports having a strong military in this dangerous world. He believes that the threat of terrorism, rogue states and potential strategic competitors require a larger and more capable military to protect America’s interests and deter threats to security. McCain also advocates the modernization of our forces to ensure that American maintains and expands its technological edge against potential adversaries. This advancement is not only in case of war, but also in fighting the war on terrorism, where McCain intends to ensure that America has the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root. With the strengthen military, John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments to support defense, but to expand the size of the military to defend against threats. He does not support the decision to use force lightly, only when the cause is just, and our nation’s values and interest absolutely demand it. Along with a strong military, John McCain supports the development of missile defense which he believes are critical to protect America from rogue regimes that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Following John McCain, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy platform pushes that we much create global coalitions to tackle global problems such as climate change, poverty, AIDS, and terrorism. She also believes we must engage our enemies, though not necessarily approve or agree with them, but understand them, which is crucial to confronting the threats they pose. Clinton takes seriously the threats of terrorism and believes we must not be distracted by Iraq on waging the war on terror effectively, promising to be tough and smart in combating terrorism. She also supports Israel’s right to exist peacefully and defend its people against terrorism. Clinton has spoken out against Hamas’s rise to power in Palestine, the problem of anti-Semitism in Palestinian textbooks and Iran’s conference on the Holocaust. She also pushes to advance peace in Northern Ireland by maintaining close ties with Irish leaders and promoting business partnerships between Northern Ireland and the United States.

On the other side of the Democratic party, Barack Obama pushes for diplomacy for many world events. He supports direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions, asking them to abandon its nuclear program and remove its support for terrorism. Incentives for this would be membership in the World Trade Organization and a move toward normal diplomatic relations, while continuing in these behaviors Obama would increase our economic pressure and political isolation. Included in speaking with Iran, Obama supports starting talks with international leaders that may be foes, feeling we must rally international support for our leadership and draw on this support for the ranging challenges from terrorism to climate change. In the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Obama wishes to progress and work with the Israelis and Palestinians to achieve the goal of the two states, both an Israel and Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. Also, Obama supports strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and cracking down on countries that break the rules with strong international sanctions. Along with diplomacy, Obama also wishes to reduce the strain on our active force by increase the size of ground forces. He wishes to restore the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves, permitting them adequate time to train and rest between deployments, also planning to give the Guard a seat at the table by making the Chief of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.