The FT has two articles confirming, from
different viewpoints, that the likely Democratic leadership conforms
very closely to the Bush agenda on foreign policy.
'With the notable exception of Iraq, on
which all the candidates [standing to be the Democratic Presidential
candidate] favour a withdrawal of US combat troops within a
year or so, few have directly challenged the parameters of Mr
Bush's "global war on terror". Among the leading candidates
only John Edwards has proposed an overhaul in how to frame it.
' "The Democratic candidates are bending
over backwards to show that they would have no hesitation in
firing that missile or in authorising this or that war,"
says Steve Clemons at the New America Foundation, a centrist
think-tank. "In many respects they are running on a Bush-lite
foreign policy platform."
'Perhaps the most notable similarity with
the Bush administration is on Israel. As recently as 1999 and
2000, it was acceptable for Bill Clinton, a Democratic president,
to talk about "Israel's occupation of the West Bank"
as an obstacle to peace. Mr Clinton frequently referred to Israeli
settlements in the occupied territories in the same vein. That
is no longer mainstream.
'The section in Mrs Clinton's website dealing
with foreign policy summarises her record on defending Israel
and says she has "spoken out against the problem of anti-semitism
in Palestinian textbooks". Nowhere does it mention her
support for a renewed peace process.
'In an article in Foreign Affairs published
yesterday, Mr Obama calls for a renewed focus on an Israeli-Palestinian
peace process. He adds that "our starting point must always
be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel".
Mr Obama was criticised after the first debate for having forgotten
Israel when asked to list the US's key allies.
'On Iran, most recommend unconditional
talks, in contrast to Mr Bush who says Tehran must first suspend
its enrichment of uranium. But all the contenders have come
close to repeating the formula put forward by John McCain, the
leading Republican candidate, who said the only thing worse
than war with Iran was a nuclear-armed Iran.
' "In dealing with this threat no
option can be taken off the table," said Mrs Clinton earlier
this year. Mr Obama also says the military option can not be
taken off the table.
' "Iran provides an opportunity for
the Democrats to show they are realistic and tough on foreign
policy because it poses a genuine threat to Israel and broader
regional stability," says Ivo Daalder, a fellow at the
Brookings Institution who advises Mr Obama's campaign.
'None, says Mr Clemons, questions the underlying
logic of relying so heavily on projection of force in foreign
policy. "America is at a stage when we need someone to
say: 'We're stuck, let's revisit the fundamentals,' " says
Mr Clemons. "But so far they are too timid to risk it."
'
From the right (the far-right), Christopher
Caldwell of the Weekly Standard writes:
'For now, Democrats have got all they can
out of the Iraq issue. That the American public is sick of Mr
Bush and tired of Iraq does not mean that it yet trusts Democrats
in power. Activists in all walks of political life often have
the mistaken impression that without their hectoring, no consensus
would ever form. But today, the best case against the war is
being made by the war itself. The anti-war cause has broadened
to include many who supported the war early on. Hardline partisans
who embraced protest reflexively in the run-up to the war half
a decade ago are still the most vocal part of the anti-war movement.
They are no longer the most representative.'
'A month ago, George W. Bush vetoed a supplemental
defence spending bill that contained a deadline for removing
troops from Iraq. Democrats were sharply divided on whether
they should offer the president a new bill with the deadline
taken out or stake everything on ending the war through an apocalyptic
budget confrontation. They chose the former route. In late May,
the new deadline-less version passed 280-142 in the House and
80-14 in the Senate, with mostly Republican votes.
'To the Democrats' committed militants,
it appeared that the new majority, elected in a spirit of disgust
over Iraq, was voting for the programme of the discredited minority.
A few days after the vote, Cindy Sheehan, an impassioned and
erratic war protester whose son was killed in action in Iraq
in 2004, announced in a letter to a partisan website that she
was abandoning the anti-war movement. Letter writers to The
New York Times have professed themselves "dismayed, disappointed
and frustrated", "disgusted" and "utterly
baffled" by Democratic wishy-washiness. MoveOn.org, the
partisan activist group, said it might support challenges to
Democrats who voted for the bill.
