Macro and Micro Foreign Policy

After watching tonight's debate between Senators Obama and McCain, I couldn't help but feel as if we were watching two men argue over the obvious distinctions in their foreign policy positions, rather than the finer and more nuanced differences that may ultimately define their actions abroad. Leaving the political analysis aside, I think both senators did a decent job of articulating their macro-vision of the world, while regrettably failing to truly distinguish their foreign policy platforms from one another.

Senator Obama seemingly attacked the Kirkpatrick Doctrine of supporting non-ideological and more malleable authoritarians over totalitarian regimes that conflict with the interests of the United States. He referred to Pervez Musharraf as "our" dictator; chiding President Bush's Pakistani policy as a 20th Century approach to bilateral relations. But if Senator Obama really believes this, why would he approve of targeted attacks in Pakistan; the same kind of attacks approved by President Musharraf? Would American troops be exchanging fire with Pakistani troops today were "our" dictator still at the helm there?

Senator Obama did manage to express his foreign policy rationale, and rather well, actually. Speaking on the American presence in Iraq, Obama said "we have weakened our capacity to project power around the world." There's a fine argument to be made here, but it'll be interesting to see if Obama can come up with stronger details to substantiate that reasonable view on Iraq. Does the senator, for instance, want the United States to mirror the activities of China in Africa and Latin America, as he appeared to hint at this evening? What would that entail? Would he advocate the use of American forces in equally contentious and sectarian regions if done so in the name of American security? It’s clear that he wants a stronger presence in Afghanistan, but beyond that, his tactical approach remains vague.