By ERIC MARGOLIS
A lot of people ask me which presidential candidate would have the most positive effect on America's foreign policy and global image.
Sen. John McCain has stated he intends to "confront" Russia, which he warns is an increasingly menacing power. He has proposed a hard line towards China to keep its growing power contained. Welcome back Moscow and Beijing to America's enemies list.
McCain has put Sen. Joseph Lieberman in charge of Mideast policy and surrounded himself with other neocon advisers. Sen. McCain vows to battle Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah, Hamas in Palestine, al-Qaida and its allies, Taliban, Pakistani Taliban and all other Muslim "terrorists," as he calls them.
McCain and Lieberman strongly back Israel's right wing parties, notably Likud, which rejects any meaningful land for peace deal with Palestinians and is determined to keep colonizing the West Bank.
A McCain win means no Arab-Israeli peace agreement even though half of Israelis, and a majority of American Jews, support such an agreement.
No peace in the Mideast means more violence and more troubles for the United States. The men who flew airliners into buildings in New York and Washington on 9/11 made clear they were motivated by Palestine. Expect what the West calls "terrorism," and the Muslim world calls "resistance to oppression," to continue or worsen.
OBEDIENT IRAQ
Sen. McCain insists he won't leave Iraq until a regime obedient to Washington is secure, no matter how long it takes. That could mean a decade. He vows to send more troops to Afghanistan. Estimated war costs for 2009: $250 billion.
If McCain really believes all this, and it's not just electoral bombast aimed at arousing the party's Christian fundamentalist core; he needs be warned he can't take on Russia, China, and the Muslim world when the U.S. is bankrupt and financing its wars by borrowing from China and Japan.
European and Asian governments view McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, with deep unease and skepticism. "More of Bush, but maybe worse," one senior French official told me.
Sen. Barack Obama vows to send 15,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and threatens to attack Pakistan. Both ideas are foolhardy. The Afghan War can only be settled by peace talks, not more troops. More U.S. attacks on Pakistan could blow that crumbling, bankrupt nation apart. Obama needs some tutorials on South Asia, and fast.
Regarding the volatile Mideast, Obama, caught up in election fever, quickly adopted the hardline policies of the U.S. pro-Israel lobby, which speaks for Israel's right wing parties. They reject any land for peace deal.
Obama's Mideast stance quickly diminished once avid support for him across the Muslim world and deeply worried Europe which is struggling for a peace deal in Palestine.
However, Obama's calls for a rapid pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq have been positively greeted around the globe.
If the world could vote in next week's U.S. election, Obama would win by a landslide, as this column reported from Paris last April. People abroad see in Obama everything they hope the U.S. will become after the dark Bush years, though his foreign policies still remain vague.
Obama projects a positive image of America. His intelligence, eloquence, social consciousness and dignity stand in contrast to Bush and Cheney, who were detested around the globe. But non-Americans do not yet see how much Obama already has become prisoner of Washington's powerful special interests.
Despite his flawed Mideast and Afghan policies, Obama offers a return to more moderate U.S. foreign policy that does not entirely rely on military power to advance its goals. His election would show the world that America's principles of equality and equal opportunity really exist. An Obama victory would raise America's worldwide standing and begin repairing the monumental damage inflicted on U.S. overseas interests by the Bush administration.
Whoever wins will inherit a bankrupt America and a world financial panic.
May the best man survive.
Toronto Sun
A view from a real con not a neo one.
A lot of people ask me which presidential candidate would have the most positive effect on America's foreign policy and global image.
Sen. John McCain has stated he intends to "confront" Russia, which he warns is an increasingly menacing power. He has proposed a hard line towards China to keep its growing power contained. Welcome back Moscow and Beijing to America's enemies list.
McCain has put Sen. Joseph Lieberman in charge of Mideast policy and surrounded himself with other neocon advisers. Sen. McCain vows to battle Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah, Hamas in Palestine, al-Qaida and its allies, Taliban, Pakistani Taliban and all other Muslim "terrorists," as he calls them.
McCain and Lieberman strongly back Israel's right wing parties, notably Likud, which rejects any meaningful land for peace deal with Palestinians and is determined to keep colonizing the West Bank.
A McCain win means no Arab-Israeli peace agreement even though half of Israelis, and a majority of American Jews, support such an agreement.
No peace in the Mideast means more violence and more troubles for the United States. The men who flew airliners into buildings in New York and Washington on 9/11 made clear they were motivated by Palestine. Expect what the West calls "terrorism," and the Muslim world calls "resistance to oppression," to continue or worsen.
OBEDIENT IRAQ
Sen. McCain insists he won't leave Iraq until a regime obedient to Washington is secure, no matter how long it takes. That could mean a decade. He vows to send more troops to Afghanistan. Estimated war costs for 2009: $250 billion.
If McCain really believes all this, and it's not just electoral bombast aimed at arousing the party's Christian fundamentalist core; he needs be warned he can't take on Russia, China, and the Muslim world when the U.S. is bankrupt and financing its wars by borrowing from China and Japan.
European and Asian governments view McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, with deep unease and skepticism. "More of Bush, but maybe worse," one senior French official told me.
Sen. Barack Obama vows to send 15,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and threatens to attack Pakistan. Both ideas are foolhardy. The Afghan War can only be settled by peace talks, not more troops. More U.S. attacks on Pakistan could blow that crumbling, bankrupt nation apart. Obama needs some tutorials on South Asia, and fast.
Regarding the volatile Mideast, Obama, caught up in election fever, quickly adopted the hardline policies of the U.S. pro-Israel lobby, which speaks for Israel's right wing parties. They reject any land for peace deal.
Obama's Mideast stance quickly diminished once avid support for him across the Muslim world and deeply worried Europe which is struggling for a peace deal in Palestine.
However, Obama's calls for a rapid pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq have been positively greeted around the globe.
If the world could vote in next week's U.S. election, Obama would win by a landslide, as this column reported from Paris last April. People abroad see in Obama everything they hope the U.S. will become after the dark Bush years, though his foreign policies still remain vague.
Obama projects a positive image of America. His intelligence, eloquence, social consciousness and dignity stand in contrast to Bush and Cheney, who were detested around the globe. But non-Americans do not yet see how much Obama already has become prisoner of Washington's powerful special interests.
Despite his flawed Mideast and Afghan policies, Obama offers a return to more moderate U.S. foreign policy that does not entirely rely on military power to advance its goals. His election would show the world that America's principles of equality and equal opportunity really exist. An Obama victory would raise America's worldwide standing and begin repairing the monumental damage inflicted on U.S. overseas interests by the Bush administration.
Whoever wins will inherit a bankrupt America and a world financial panic.
May the best man survive.
Toronto Sun
A view from a real con not a neo one.
