Aside from the economy, and judging from the questions posed both by voters and by the press, one of the most pressing questions of 2008 will be the question of Foreign policy, and how the next president will guide the US in its dealings with its neighbors. During the course of actual media coverage, however, very little about the Candidates' actual positions on foreign policy are ever discussed beyond the shallowest of detail. So, in an effort to clarify candidate positions, here's a quick run down of where the candidates stand.

First is Senator John McCain, a well known war veteran and one that many people believe will be an able foreign policy leader because of his past record in the armed services. Yet, from reading a Foreign Affairs article written in 2007 by Senator McCain himself, I remain skeptical (the article itself is a good read, if a bit generic. I recommend everyone take a gander beyond what I copy and paste in this post). McCain's words seem very similar to the words of George W. Bush as far as foreign policy is concerned. It is well known that his stance in Iraq is to stay the course, as made abundantly clear by his "100 years if necessary" comment, but what about the other nations which have become hot button issues.

On Iraq:

Whether success grows closer or more distant over the coming months,
it is clear that Iraq will be a central issue for the next U.S.
president. Democratic candidates have promised to withdraw U.S. troops
and "end the war" by fiat, regardless of the consequences. To make such
decisions based on the political winds at home, rather than on the
realities in the theater, is to court disaster. The war in Iraq cannot
be wished away, and it is a miscalculation of historic magnitude to
believe that the consequences of failure will be limited to one
administration or one party. This is an American war, and its outcome
will touch every one of our citizens for years to come. 

That is
why I support our continuing efforts to win in Iraq. It is also why I
oppose a preemptive withdrawal strategy that has no Plan B for the
aftermath of its inevitable failure and the greater problems that would
ensue.

 On Afghanistan

What happens in Iraq will also affect Afghanistan. There has been
progress in Afghanistan: over two million refugees have returned, the
welfare of Afghan citizens has meaningfully improved, and historic
elections took place in 2004. The Taliban's recent resurgence, however,
threatens to lead Afghanistan to revert to its pre-9/11 role as a
sanctuary for terrorists with global reach. Our recommitment to
Afghanistan must include increasing NATO forces, suspending the
debilitating restrictions on when and how those forces can fight,
expanding the training and equipping of the Afghan National Army
through a long-term partnership with NATO to make it more professional
and multiethnic, and deploying significantly more foreign police
trainers. It must also address the current political deficiencies in
judicial reform, reconstruction, governance, and anticorruption efforts.

On Iran:

The next president must confront this threat directly, and that effort
must begin with tougher political and economic sanctions. If the United
Nations is unwilling to act, the United States must lead a group of
like-minded countries to impose effective multilateral sanctions, such
as restrictions on exports of refined gasoline, outside the UN
framework. America and its partners should also privatize the sanctions
effort by supporting a disinvestment campaign to isolate and
delegitimize the regime in Tehran, whose policies are already opposed
by many Iranian citizens. And military action, although not the
preferred option, must remain on the table: Tehran must understand that
it cannot win a showdown with the world.

On Israel

the next U.S. president must continue America's long-standing support
for Israel, including by providing needed military equipment and
technology and ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military
edge.

On Russia

Today, we see in Russia diminishing political freedoms, a leadership
dominated by a clique of former intelligence officers, efforts to bully
democratic neighbors, such as Georgia, and attempts to manipulate
Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas. We need a new Western
approach to this revanchist Russia. We should start by ensuring that
the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again
a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and
India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear
blackmail or cyberattacks, Western nations should make clear that the
solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible
and that the organization's doors remain open to all democracies
committed to the defense of freedom. We must also increase our programs
supporting freedom and the rule of law in Russia and emphasize that
genuine partnership remains open to Moscow if it desires it but that
such a partnership would involve a commitment to being a responsible
actor, internationally and domestically.

On South-East Asia

In Southeast Asia, I will seek an elevated partnership with Indonesia
and continue to expand defense cooperation with Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam while working with willing regional
partners to promote democracy; defeat the threats of terrorism, crime,
and the narcotics trade; and end Burma's deplorable human rights
abuses. The United States should participate more actively in Asian
regional organizations, including those led by members of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations. As president, I will seek to
institutionalize the new quadrilateral security partnership among the
major Asia-Pacific democracies: Australia, India, Japan, and the United
States.

These stances are, I suppose, why I am so dubious about McCain. Despite all his claims as a maverick as far as economic and social policy is concerned, he is an avowed war hawk. In an article where he needed not (and indeed, did not) address specifics, his general plan consists of a direct threat against regional superpowers Russia and China, a commitment to continue the same pro-Israeli bias that have plagued peace processes since the reign of Ronald Reagan and showed an alarming willingness to disregard the United Nations and its diplomatic efforts. If that is the case, then what exactly is the difference between this so called Maverick and the neo-conservative regime currently in the White House?

The continuation of the current system of a stretched military seems dangerous, and McCain's belligerence and willingness to deploy force and sanctions in some of these sectors is quite troubling.

In fact, I think the argument can be very well made that a McCain administration would be the most belligerent American government since Harry Truman was president. There is not much the Bush administration did right in the sphere of Foreign policy, but at least they were consistent in their appeasement of nations deemed strategically viable or economically important. McCain, on the other hand, seems much more committed to the idea of foreign policy by the barrel of a gun going as far as to challenge two powers (Russia and China) armed with nuclear arsenals and strong, disgustingly popular governments. McCain, to me, seems like a continuation of our current administration in the realm of foreign policy - an interventionist who is far too convinced of our ability to build a nation. To me, John McCain is a dangerous man, a nationalist with a militaristic slant and a history of support interventionist foreign policy - a man too dangerous to be let into the White House.

 Part II detailing Hillary Clinton will probably be up sometime next week.