Thinking of an Obama presidency, what ‘change’ may we really see?

Over the last twenty years, we have seen that political experience is not the only thing which brings into power elected presidents and prime-Ministers after mesmerizing, rhetorical and much hyped and charismatic election campaigns.

In the US, Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were not the most experienced candidates when they stood up for election and re-election. They won because of their charismatic personalities, which enabled them to better connect with the intellectual sub-conscious of the voters.

The ‘change’ that Barack Obama talks about is much different from the ground realities. Till the time of this writing, he had not shown his understanding about the limitations that apply on executive presidential power in the US.

However, before proceeding with this discussion, it would be worthwhile to look at the political situation around the world today, as it is on the ground.

The issues that we face today, have not evolved over night. They were even existent during the Cold War, but did not explode then as they were capped by Soviet Communist power.

However, the debate about how to lead the world in this era of post-modernity and post-Cold War, has taken a new dimension which symbolizes itself in the ‘change’ mantra of Barack Obama.

He talked about change while putting forward his argument that America shall move forward from dynastical politics and repetitions of the past follies committed during the era of the current Bush Administration.

This has worked perfectly well for him. The campaigns of Senator Clinton and Senator McCain could never pose any logical answers back to the Obama camp.

Senator McCain has yet to show to the American voters that how would his strategy on Iraq would be different from that of George Bush. Just like Mr Bush, McCain also talks about staying in Iraq for a longer time period and committing more troops.

Despite these ongoing debates, academics and analysts strongly believe that change, in its real terms, may not be all that great, no matter who takes the White House in January 2009.

Talking about the Iraq policy of the two Senators, leading academic and writer, Professor Waleed Aly of Monash University, says “the actual change would not be great.� On part of Senator McCain, this is so because “he needs to consolidate support amongst conservative Republicans,� according to Professor Aly.

Over the years, Senator McCain has become more of an independent. At times, his stand on certain issues has been in contradiction to that of his party. Considering the growing influence of the conservatives and evangelicals in the Republican Party, Senator McCain may have to do tough talking to consolidate that voting block.
Thus, if Senator McCain continues to follow the failed and flawed policies and foot-steps of the outgoing Bush administration, this could bring large-scale adversities for the US and the entire world.

Senator Obama’s policy on Iraq has been totally different and enjoys greater support. However since clinching the nomination in early June, the Senator has balked much from his initial stance on bringing the troops home in 16 months.

Over the last month, Senator Obama has made statements saying that he would now consult General Patreaus and other military and intelligence officials on the ground. Once he gets the right intelligence, then he would give the orders of a troop-redeployment.

In an article in The Age on July 15, the Illinois Senator explained that he would first be withdrawing troops from the relatively secure areas. Talking further, he wrote that the redeployed troops, before being phased out in 2010, would fight remaining Al-Qaeda remnants and protect American interests in the country.

However, despite this sweet talk, Senator Obama surely does not understand how hard it would be to execute and implement such a strategy. According to leading academic Professor Greg Barton, “tough talking does not mean that he would do everything.�

“Obama is talking tough to shown himself as not being too much on the left,� argues Professor Barton.

During the course of the interview, Professor Barton also explained the political campaign of Senator Obama. He laid emphasis on the fact that the American population was increasingly getting weary of the war in Iraq and said that the idea of a long overdrawn war did not appeal to them much.

It was this sway in the public’s attitude of the war on which Senator Obama has put forward his anti-war rhetoric to the Americans.

According to Professor Barton, “we yet do not know the foreign policy of Barack Obama. His statements are seen as disingenuous.�

This is particularly true in case of Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan.

On the issue of Iraq, Senator Obama talks about negotiating issues with the Iraqi government and the US Commanders on the ground. On Pakistan, however, he has a different policy.

Barack Obama has publicly said that he would not desist from striking towns and cities inside Pakistan’s North West, if he has ‘actionable intelligence.’


Writing in the Time magazine (July 28 issue), he said “We should condition some assistance to Pakistan on their action to take the fight to the terrorists within their borders. And if we have actionable intelligence about high-value Al-Qaeda targets, we must act if Pakistan will not or cannot.�

The Senator’s acute political inexperience speaks for itself here. He does not understand the reasons because of which American foreign policy is hated world over.

It has been shown that the villages and schools that American drones have been bombing inside Pakistan (a clear violation of Pakistani Airspace and national sovereignty) did not harbour any Al-Qaeda or Taliban elements and innocent civilians were killed instead.

On this count, Senator McCain’s approach has been markedly different and much more down to earth. Responding Senator Obama’s article in the same issue of the Time magazine, he wrote “We must strengthen local tribes in the border areas who are willing to fight the foreign terrorists and convince Pakistanis that this is their war as much as it is ours. Senator Obama has spoken about taking unilateral military action in Pakistan. In trying to sound tough, he has made it harder for the people whose support we most need to provide it.�

This is the idea which has attained widespread global support. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani has made it amply clear that any airstrike by the US inside Pakistan would be harmful. Senator Obama has surely not learnt this lesson well.

Talking about Senator Obama’s policy on Pakistan and Afghanistan, Professor Waleed Aly of Monash University says “I suspect Obama may be more hawkish than McCain.�

Professor Barton would not agree with these ideas. According to him, “we should not read too much into Obama’s campaign rhetoric.� He says that like McCain, Obama has to appeal to the more conservative elements within his party and for that he needs to do some tough talking.

On Iran, there is no doubt that negotiations and dialogue is the only way out. However, from an American perspective, it would be deemed necessary to take Israel and Europe on board as well.

We find a considerable difference in policy towards Iran between Israel, USA and Europe, with the latter two putting renewed emphasis on dialogue and negotiations.

Israel however seems to have different plans. The Jewish state has given clear indications that if it feels that negotiations are bound to fail, it may undertake unilateral military action against Iran.

American policy makers need to pay close attention to these indications and Israel’s alleged war preparations. On their part, the two presidential candidates have so far not registered a clear difference of opinion on a Jewish air strike on Iran’s nuclear sites.

Senator McCain has repeatedly said that he would not negotiate with the Iranian leadership until it does not stop uranium enrichment. This is very much in line with the policy the current Bush administration had been practicing for more than six years.

Senator Obama has expressed his willingness to negotiate with the Ahmadinejad government in Tehran. He says that in case Iran fails to stop uranium enrichment over time, he would opt for tougher diplomacy, sanctions and global isolation for the Islamic state.

Failures in talks may increase the likelihood of military escalations and adventures in the Middle East.

Keeping in mind the limitations that exist on executive presidential power, it remains to be seen that what change would Senator Obama, or Senator McCain really bring about on foreign policy over the next four years. It also remains to be seen that how would their foreign policies be different from the establishment’s current hawkish policies.