COLUMNISTS I have just spent a week in Washington, where many people assured me that a bitter and partisan debate is taking place over American foreign policy. I am not so sure. Having dutifully read the pronouncements of the leading candidates for the presidency – and talked to many of their advisers – I have drafted the following speech, which I am confident could be given by any of the main Republican or Democratic contenders:
‘‘My fellow Americans, our troops in Iraq have performed heroically and have done everything that has been asked of them. Under my presidency I will seek to bring our brave men and women home. But there will be no precipitate withdrawal from Iraq. We will secure our vital national interests.
“Our nation faces awesome challenges in Iraq and in the struggle against global jihadism. But I take inspiration from the ‘greatest generation’, which won the second world war, and from the statesmen who led us to victory in the cold war – men like George C. Marshall and Harry Truman.
“You know, some people say that in waging these struggles, we must choose between our interests and our values. But that is a false choice. Under my presidency, we will continue to support democracy and freedom-loving people around the world. Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is the smart thing to do.
“It is crucial that – in the tough years ahead – the United States remains strong. I will increase the size of our armed forces.
“We must guard against the power of a resurgent Iran, led by a dangerous Holocaust-denying leader. It is unacceptable for Iran to gain nuclear weapons. In the Middle East, our truest friend is Israel – the only real democracy in the region.
“The United Nations needs to be reformed. I will work through the UN where necessary, but I will never let the UN stop Americans doing what is right or necessary for our security.
“As a nation, we have not been paying enough attention to dramatic changes in Asia. I will engage with a rising China. But I will protect the interests of American workers and I will never soft-pedal our commitment to human rights.
“Above all, I believe in the goodness and strength of the American people. Our greatest days lie ahead.”
Of course, some of this stuff is just the kind of patriotic inanity and artful evasion that is compulsory for all presidential candidates. But not all of it. On a whole range of issues that remain very controversial even among close American allies in Europe and Asia, there is a broad American consensus. This spans Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards on the Democratic side to Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Fred Thompson among the Republicans.
All of the main candidates want to build up the American military rather than shrink it. (Senator Clinton wants to add 80,000 troops to the army). They all agree that the US has the right to take pre-emptive military action in the “war on terror”. They all still argue that the US should be promoting democracy around the world. None would accept the idea that the UN could ever constrain America, if vital national interests were at stake. They are all strong supporters of Israel. And they are all talking tough on Iran.
Even on Iraq – despite the bitter rhetoric – the mainstream Democratic and Republican positions are closer than either side would care to acknowledge. President George W. Bush announced last week that troops will start withdrawing later this year. The “surge” is over. But none of the main Democratic candidates endorses the anti-war left’s call for an immediate and complete pull-out. So the debate comes down to an argument about the scale and pace of troop withdrawals.
This is not an insignificant question. The answers range from Senator Obama’s ambition to get most American troops out by the end of 2008 while retaining a “residual force” to attack al-Qaeda, to Senator McCain’s suggestion that some US troops may stay in a pacified Iraq for decades. But all the candidates are responding to the public desire to wind the war down, in as “responsible” a fashion as possible.
The fact that the candidates’ rhetoric and positions are converging does not, however, mean they would govern identically. While everybody says it is unacceptable for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, the candidates have different instincts. All of the Democrats and Mr Romney on the Republican side are disinclined to bomb; but Messrs Giuliani and McCain might well seek to “take out” Iranian nuclear facilities, if Mr Bush has not got there first.
And despite the many areas of bipartisan consensus, there are a few important differences between Republicans and Democrats. All of the Democrats talk a lot about global warming. The Republicans – with the exception of Mr McCain – do not seem too bothered. And while all of the candidates have to sound sceptical of the UN, the Republicans are much warier of international institutions and treaties.
But, as an outsider, it is still the broad agreement among the candidates that is more striking than their disagreements. After a debacle such as Iraq, you might expect some of the fundamental assumptions underpinning American foreign policy to be questioned. On the evidence of the presidential election, you would be disappointed.
Post and read comments at www.ft.com/rachman
