...I seem to remember quite clearly one U.S. presidential candidate continuously steering Middle-Eastern foreign policy debate questions in the direction of a discussion on the future of U.S.-Pakistani relations and their long-term implications. That candidate was Democratic Senator Joe Biden. Unless you are just now returning from a six-month vacation on Mars, you are well aware that Senator Biden went on to become Senator Barack Obama's presidential running mate, and you also know that due to the electoral outcome on November 4th, Senator Biden has since become Vice President-Elect Biden.
Over the past two or so years, while most of the other presidential candidates, Democratic and Republican, understandably spent large quantities of foreign policy debate time speaking almost exclusively about Iraq (Senator McCain's favorite foreign policy topic), Iran (Senator Clinton's favorite foreign policy topic), and Afghanistan (Senator Obama's favorite foreign policy topic), Senator Biden seemed to confuse a number of audience members by consistently suggesting that how we handle the paradox-bomb that is the ongoing Pakistani scenario--as it relates to India, Afghanistan, and the wider region--will largely determine whether or not we "succeed" in the other nearby countries the other candidates were spending so much time discussing.
I should also point out that Senator Biden did often discuss Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, etc., during the debates. My point, however, is that he shifted the context from the more simplistic one used by many candidates from both parties--generally discussing these countries in piecemeal, individual terms exclusively, which allowed them to focus on their favorite topics and decide whether or not to move out from there--to a more holistic and complex context--briefly discussing the region in general and then suggesting that, given its nuclear capabilities and powder-keg status at present, Pakistan needs to be where the discussion of particular countries starts and from where it radiates to discussions of other countries in the region. (Needless to say, he was quite critical of the Bush Administration's Pakistan policy, which he said "...is only a Musharraf policy, not an actual Pakistan policy....")
The only other Democratic candidates to do this, though admittedly to a lesser and less consistent extent, were Senator Obama and Governor Bill Richardson. Those two candidates, and particularly Governor Richardson, showed that they knew the issues regarding Pakistan quite well, but they never fully used that country as their prime focus of policy toward the region. No Republicans responded in a manner similar to Senator Biden, or even in a manner similar to Senator Obama or Governor Richardson. The one who came the closest was probably Mayor Rudy Giuliani, though he focused his rather "gung-ho" comments on Iran more often than on Pakistan.
My ultimate point is this: I do not believe that Vice President-Elect Biden is some sort of soothsayer who will be sworn into the number two position in the executive branch "just in the nick of time to save us from ourselves." I may have my optimistic moments, but I am not that naive. What I do believe, however, is that an intelligent individual, President-Elect Obama, made an intelligent and informed Vice Presidential selection when he chose Mr. Biden, who happens to be prescient regarding foreign policy far more often than most U.S. national legislators, to be his running mate.
(And I think Senator Biden got a bum rap during the presidential campaign regarding his Iraq federalization plan, which it should be pointed out won the support of three-quarters of the U.S. senate and might have helped expedite a return to lower levels of violence in Iraq had it been implemented immediately upon request. Just because President Bush went in a different direction on the issue, which has resulted in some success, it doesn't mean that Senator Biden's plan was the "wrong" one.)
Does Joe Biden like to hear himself talk...often endlessly? Yes. Everyone knows that. But who cares? He's also smart, and he will make his voice heard early and often in the Obama Administration, which is what President-Elect Obama has said he wants. (Regarding foreign policy consistency within the administration, it also helps that Mr. Biden is a friend of Hillary Clinton; surely this had at least something to do with her apparent selection as the forthcoming Secretary of State....)
The world is still enthralled with President-Elect Obama. I think this is a generally good thing, and I hope it continues, though it will have to do so in an altered form once he starts governing and therefore has to make a few decisions that might be unpopular in certain sectors of the world. But, in light of recent events, I hope folks around the world understand the role Vice President-Elect Biden played in shifting the foreign policy debate within the presidential race (particularly on the Democratic side) to include countries like Pakistan, which in the early stages of the debate process were basically ignored. I also hope that folks around the world pay attention to the gravitas he adds to the Obama Administration. (Let's remember that in pre-election national polls, over 90% of Americans said he was "qualified" to be president should tragedy occur, whereas only about 50% thought the same of Governor Palin.)
Nearly everyone presently interested in the transition of presidential power seems to be saying that President-Elect Obama's "first important selections" are "telling," and most of these folks are referring to his cabinet appointments. What they seem to have forgotten is that he made his first "telling" selection months ago when he chose Joe Biden to be his running mate. I think it was a good selection. But, as is nearly always the case, only time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment