The US Presidential Candidates on Foreign Policy Essay

The US Presidential Candidates on Foreign Policy - Essay ExampleOur relations with Iran and North Korea are at center stage. Our plan for the war in Iraq and an external consensus may be vital to our success there. Al well-nigh every issue from banking to human rights requires some degree of foreign indemnity expertise. while McCains years as a Senator qualifies him as the most experienced candidate, what Obama insufficiencys in experience he makes up for in expertise. In todays world, Obamas plans and approaches to foreign policy are a better fit with the international community and the growing globalization.One of the critical differences is in the approach and style that the men bring to the table. While McCains years of experience have given him significant exposure to foreign events and crisis, many of his methods arise from his experiences and are anchored in the past. For example, his comment during the debate of walk softly and carry a big stick may have been in force(p) in dealing with the 20th degree centigrade banana republics, but is not relevant to 21st century Iran. In addition, he has recently contended that Irans Ahmadinejad was responsible for their nuclear policy when in fact it is the Ayatollah Kahmenei and Irans National pledge Council. When questioned he simply replied, any average American thought of Ahmadinejad as the Iranian leader, and so he would, too (Frick). However, we would not expect the average American to run our foreign policy. While Obama may lack the direct experience, he has a lifetime of studied thought and a personal interest in foreign affairs that gives him a historical perspective and an expertise that McCain lacks. This ability to think and examine is shown by the candidates difference in their approach to Iran. McCain steadfastly argues that we should never negotiate with terrorists and refuses to talk to the Iranians. This approach is a duration of the Bush policy that has been responsible for the election of the extremist government in Iran. While Iran is a instead moderate and modern country, they have elected a hard line government in solution to the Bush right wing rhetoric of the early 2000s. However, Obama contends that we should be talking to the Iranians. Note that Obama understands the difference among negotiating and talking, which offers no guarantees, makes no promises, and has no pre-conditions (Fang). While we may come away from the table with nothing, it may meld out an icy relationship and create a first step to a diplomatic process. present again, Obama favors the reasonable avenue of diplomacy with war as a last resort, while McCain favors the pre-emptive strike policies (a intoxicating and dangerous approach) that have been engage by the current administration. These same shortsighted policies will be pursued by McCain in North Korea, while Obama will favor constructive diplomacy to defuse the situation.The most immediate foreign policy dilemma that will face t he next president will be the plan for Iraq. The critical difference between the candidates is their steadiness and commitment to a goal. Obama has supported a phased climb-down with a timetable to extract the US presence in Iraq since the war began. McCain had been adamantly opposed to a timetable controversy that it would simply motivate the enemy to wait for our exit. Meckler reports that, After months of ridiculing opponents who want to set a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq, today John