A Critical Look Ahead

To that end, Bush has decided to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and sending some to Afghanistan?
Getting troops out of Iraq makes a lot of sense. For almost two years now I have advocated systematic talks with all the top Iraqi leaders across the entire political and ethnic-religious spectrum to jointly set a date for disengagement. I don't think that just putting more troops in Afghanistan is the best remedy. The Afghans—and I happen to know a little about Afghanistan—have a historically rooted aversion to foreigners with guns on their soil.

This summer American diplomats floated the possibility of opening a diplomatic presence — an "interests section" — in Tehran. Do you see that as a shift for the Bush administration?
If they went ahead with it, then it would certainly be a shift. But currently I see no evidence that they are going ahead with it. And I don't know whether the president has excluded the other alternative that you mentioned.

What should the U.S. presidential candidates be talking about in the run-up to November?
Speaking purely in terms of foreign policy, clearly the first issue pertains to the interrelated set of crises ranging from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the Iraq War, the tension and antagonism with Iran and the deteriorating conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Beyond that, a very important issue the next president will have to address is the need for a serious effort to genuinely shape joint policy, as well as share burdens with the Europeans. The U.S., by itself, cannot deal with global problems. And also now we have to add a new problem, namely, how to deal with Russia.

Historically, during presidential elections, how serious of a foreign-policy discussion do candidates undertake on the campaign trail?
Only to the extent that it has an impact on domestic political attitudes. That is understandable, as their task is to win the elections, not to engage in a public-policy debate over foreign policy irrespective of political consequences.

Is there much of a difference between the two candidates on foreign policy?
First of all, there are circumstances in which sometimes it is important to stand for national unity in the face of a crisis. I would have liked to have seen the two candidates stand together with the president when the crisis in Georgia erupted so that the issue would not be subject to partisan debate. But beyond that, I think it does make a difference as to the basic sense of the historical moment that a candidate espouses. My sense is that Obama has a more sensitive—both intuitive and rational—grasp of how much the world has changed and how much America's role has to be redefined. McCain is an admirable individual whom I know and like but whose entire experience is in the previous century and who I don't think is as much in touch with the dynamic change that is taking place.

In this historically new era as you describe it, what is the first thing that must be done when the new president takes office?
There are a few items in the book. I could give you a whole list. I think just changing the message that America emanates. America stood for something in the past, and that was very attractive to the world. We have to regain that.

© 2008