By LaToya Irby

Lahle says of Obama, “[Y]ou cannot win an election based on ‘good will.’” Yes you can, especially when you’re up against someone who is determined to have the country at war. McCain’s a fuse looking for a spark. Forget the spark; just give him a piece of glass on a bright, sunny day. He’ll gladly do the rest.

What can get Obama elected, even with his “good will” approach to diplomacy, is his commitment to ending the war in Iraq. It’s what America wants. It’s what Iraq wants. Beyond the war, I don’t believe the average American voter is very much concerned with what’s going on outside our borders (unless it has to do with foreigners sneaking across U.S. borders, but that’s another story).

The Georgia-Russia situation has only been a hot topic for a couple weeks, and before that, foreign policy was a foreign thought. Andrew said it best, “[U]nless we start seeing Russian submarines off the coast of Savannah, I seriously doubt that most Americans are going to cast their votes with Georgia on their mind.” That’s why I say that Obama can get elected based on his current foreign policy, or lack thereof.

I agree with Lahle on the point that Obama’s foreign policy is weak. It’s vague and neutral. But, I almost would rather have Obama’s inexperience over McCain’s experience.

Would you rather have a newer, more pliable piece of clay or an older, hardened piece that's only good for breaking windows?

If Obama’s elected, he’ll undoubtedly rely on his foreign policy advisors when it comes to making foreign policy decisions, at least in the early years of his term. That may mean we should pay more attention to the views of people like Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, and Zbigniew Brzezinsk if we really want to know what an Obama foreign policy is.

At this point, it sounds a lot better than keeping troops in Iraq for another 100 years.

This week's previous posts (most recent first): Wishful Thinking, Cold War, Great Power, Say Anything, Georgia, Looking Abroad.