Our "Peace" Candidate

Obama's speech at American Israel Public Affairs Committee should dispel any illusions that a foreign policy debate containing any semblance of substance will take place this fall.

In front of about 7,000 people, Obama reaffirmed America's steadfast support for Israeli security and identified Iran as public enemy number one with respect to peace in the region. Undoubtedly, Obama's speech was meant to convey a stronger, tougher candidate than the one attacked by John McCain in recent days.

Obama delivered his speech just two days after Senator McCain spoke from the same podium. Predictably, McCain drew upon the usual pro-Israel/pro-war talking points that have been hammered into Americans for as long as I can remember: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust and compares Israel to a stinking corpse, Israel must be defended at all costs, Iran is seconds away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, etc. There's not much room for interpretation when it comes to McCain's position on American/Israeli ties - his stance is as simple as McCain himself.

Less predictable, though still unsurprising, was the tough talk emanating from Obama. To his credit, Obama did attribute Middle Eastern instability (and the strengthening of Iran) to American presence in the region. However, shortly after making the above statement, Obama identified Iran as the greatest threat in the region, then delivered this confusing remark (emphasis mine):

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

At best, Obama is pandering to his audience; at worst, his charade as the "peace candidate" is over. While Obama does assert his belief that American troops should be redeployed out of Iraq, it's important to remember the terms "redeployment" and "peace" are not synonymous. Obama's belief in the expanding the military by 92,000, coupled with his bellicosity towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, leave little doubt that Obama and McCain differ in degree--not substance--when it comes to the War on Terror.

The illusion of choice is not a choice. Sadly, millions of people will rush to the polls to vote for the "anti-war" Obama, when in reality they're voting for nothing more than a new manager in the War on Terror. As was the case between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, what differences exist between McCain and Obama are merely cosmetic - and those who desire war will continue to get what they want.

That said, I expect any foreign policy debates between Obama and McCain to center on tactics and not philosophy. The belief that overseas American military presence is necessary in order to protect our vital interests (including Israeli sovereignty) is the universally accepted premise in every foreign policy debate. Let the "debate" begin...