Presidential candidates McCain, Clinton, and Obama have been eagerly telling us what domestic policies they favor.  They remain very vague, however, on how they want to shape America’s foreign affairs.  Senator McCain wants to stick it out in Iraq while hoping for some kind of “victory” over the hidden foes.  Senators Clinton and Obama want to bring the troops home, but they have yet to explain how specifically their foreign policy will differ from the bungling of the Bush administration.

When Mr. Bush ran for president, he rejected "nation building” as an American objective.  Yet, that is exactly what he unsuccessfully tried to accomplish in Afghanistan and in Iraq.  The “mission” allegedly “accomplished” five years ago now costs taxpayers an estimated $2.4 billion per week.

Arguably the most distinct characteristic of the President’s approach toward the rest of the world has been his unilateralism.  He cared little about the reactions of friends and foes alike when he ordered the invasion of Iraq, when he withdrew from such multinational initiatives as the antiballistic missile treaty, the international landmine treaty, and the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gases.  Mr. Bush also refused to consult with the other major powers when he launched the National Missile Defense project that might--or might not--one day provide for the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missiles in flight.

Regrettably, none of the administration’s unilateral foreign and defense policies have so far been debated by the presidential hopefuls.  Neither have they told us how they plan to deal with those whom the Bush administration considers dangerous, specifically Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas in the Middle East, North Korea and Myanmar in Asia, Venezuela and Bolivia in Latin America.

Will we continue our unproductive insistence on not talking with those whom we don’t like and who differ with us on major policy issues?  Will we continue to condone the building of nuclear weapons by Israel, India, and Pakistan while denying Iran and Syria their treaty-based right to develop nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes only?

While paying lip service to the President’s “road map for peace” between Israelis and Palestinians, neither Senator Clinton nor Senator McCain have shown any interest in getting personally involved in the necessary negotiations between the occupiers and the occupied.  Obama wants to “change” the U.S. approach to peacemaking but remains vague on the details--for fear of losing too many pro-Israeli voters.

Our Israeli friends owe it to the American taxpayers to give the Palestinians their freedom and their rightful territory after having received more than $100 billion over 60 years in American aid --more than any another nation on a per capita basis.  We cannot be expected to spend American treasure endlessly on the Middle East, 8000 miles from home.  Unfortunately, none of the presidential candidates have the wisdom and the courage to propose the ways necessary to prod Israel into making peace with the Muslim world and Arabs in particular, not only for Israel’s but also for America’s sake.

 A distinguished group of 27 former U.S. ambassadors, foreign policy experts, and four-star generals, “Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change,” recently called for a new approach to U.S. foreign policy in the following public statement:

                      “From the outset, President George W. Bush adopted an overbearing approach to America’s role in the world, relying upon military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations.  Instead of building upon America’s great economic and moral strength to lead other nations in a coordinated campaign to address the causes of terrorism and to stifle its resources, the Administration, motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, struck out on its own… The Bush Administration has shown that it does not grasp these circumstances of the new era, and is not able to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership in either style or substance. It is time for a change.”