Presidential Candidates on Major National Security Issues
With presidential primaries in full swing and the national election fast approaching, Council for a Livable World is keeping close track of the positions of the remaining Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, on our issues. Read below for updates on recent statements made by these Senators regarding Iraq, Iran, nuclear weapons and proliferation, India, and North Korea.
For additional information on the candidates' positions on Council for a Livable World's issues, check these great resources:
"An Early Look Ahead: What to Expect from Clinton, McCain, and Obama on National Security" from Council Executive Director, John Isaacs
Presidential Candidates' Responses to Seven Key National Security Questions from Council for a Livable World
Issue Trackers from the Council on Foreign Relations
Eyes on the Prize from the Friends Committee on National Legislation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary Clinton
John McCain
Barack Obama
While there is much to praise in Senator McCain’s speech, he and I continue to have a fundamental disagreement on Iraq. Like President Bush, Senator McCain continues to oppose a swift and responsible withdrawal from Iraq. Like President Bush, Senator McCain discounts the warnings of our senior military leadership of the consequences of the Iraq war on the readiness of our armed forces, and on the need to focus on the forgotten front line in Afghanistan. Like President Bush, Senator McCain wants to keep us tied to another country's civil war, and said “it would be fine with me” if U.S. troops were in Iraq for 50 or even 100 years. That in a nutshell is the Bush/McCain Iraq policy.
March 26, 2008 Press release response to John McCain
I will start by facing the conditions on the ground in Iraq as they are, not as we hope or wish them to be. President Bush points to the reduction in violence in Iraq last year and claims the surge is working. Now, I applaud any decrease in violence. That is always good news. But the point of the surge was to give the Iraqis the time and space for political reconciliation. Yet today, the Iraqi government has failed to provide basic services for its citizens. They have yet to pass legislation ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues, yet even to pass a law setting the date of provincial elections. Corruption and dysfunction is rampant, and last week General Petraeus himself conceded that no one, in either the U.S. government or the Iraqi government, feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation.
Despite the evidence, President Bush is determined to continue his failed policy in Iraq until he leaves office. And Senator McCain will gladly accept the torch and stay the course, keeping troops in Iraq for up to 100 years if necessary. They both want to keep us tied to another country's civil war, a war we cannot win. That in a nutshell is the Bush/McCain Iraq policy. Don't learn from your mistakes, repeat them. Well, here is the inescapable reality. We can have hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground for 100 years, but that will not change the fact that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq.
The most important part of my plan is the first step, to bring our troops home and send the strongest possible message to the Iraqis that they must take responsibly for their own future. No more talk of permanent occupation, no more policing a civil war, no more doing for the Iraqis what they need to be doing for themselves. As president, one of my first official actions will be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my Secretary of Defense and my National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to start bringing our troops home within the first 60 days of my taking office. A plan based on my consultation with the military to remove one to two brigades a month, a plan that reduces the risks of attack as they depart.
March 17, 2008 Speech at George Washington University
Al Qaeda and the Taliban have largely recovered from the blows inflicted after 9/11. Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan have now merged into one of the most dangerous regions of the world, and one of the most strategically important to the United States. Today, Hillary pledged to make Afghanistan her highest security priority after Iraq, and outlined her agenda for winning the war in Afghanistan. As President she will:
- Increase International Support to Afghanistan
- Work with Afghan Government to Improve Security Forces - both Police and Army.
- Revitalize International Support for Reconstruction
- Redesign the Counternarcotics Program
- Appoint a Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan
- Support Afghan Government's Capacity for Self-Governance
- Ending President Bush's one-dimensional Pakistan policy
- Increasing non-military assistance to Pakistan
- Support improved relations between India and Pakistan
March 6, 2008Press release
On my first day in office, I will announce, as I have repeatedly in this campaign, that the era of cowboy diplomacy is over. That includes the doctrine of pre-emptive war. I have been against that for many years. I believe it led us into a blind alley and I don't think I need to remind the retired flag officers here today how difficult the choices made by the president have been for American military. We need a new national military strategy that employs military power wisely instead of squandering it.
That requires us to begin to bring out troops home from Iraq within 60 days of the new president taking office. I believe we can redeploy one to two brigades a month but I also believe it will be dangerous. There's been a lot of talk about withdrawal and redeployment and I think it needs to be put into an appropriate context. Withdrawing troops is not easy. One does not wake up in the morning and say let's bring them home. It requires planning that looks at every possible contingency.
One thing the American people can be sure of, I will not broadcast threats of unilateral military action against a country like Pakistan just to demonstrate that I am tough enough for the job. We have to change our tone and change our course.
February 25, 2008 Speech at George Washington University
We are an honorable country and we have to withdraw in a way that keeps faith with the sacrifice of those who have been lost, with those who have been injured. And we must make it clear there is no military solution, bring our people home and tell the Iraqis they have to take responsibility for their own future...And I believe we need a nominee who can go toe-to-toe with John McCain to make the differences absolutely clear to the American people. He wants to keep troops in Iraq for 50 to 100 years. I'll start bringing them home within 60 days.
February 16, 2008 Wisconsin Day Founders Gala Remarks
We Americans must lead by example and encourage the participation of the rest of the world, including most importantly, the developing economic powerhouses of China and India.
We also share an obligation with the world's other great powers to halt and reverse the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The United States and the international community must work together and do all in our power to contain and reverse North Korea's nuclear weapons program and to prevent Iran -- a nation whose President has repeatedly expressed a desire to wipe Israel from the face of the earth -- from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We should work to reduce nuclear arsenals all around the world, starting with our own. Forty years ago, the five declared nuclear powers came together in support of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and pledged to end the arms race and move toward nuclear disarmament. The time has come to renew that commitment. We do not need all the weapons currently in our arsenal. The United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament consistent with our vital interests and the cause of peace.
It will strengthen us to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism…Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House, for he or she does not take seriously enough the first and most basic duty a president has -- to protect the lives of the American people...We learned through the tragic experience of September 11 that passive defense alone cannot protect us. We must protect our borders. But we must also have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate, and deny them bases in failed or failing states…
Prevailing in this struggle will require far more than military force…Our goal must be to win the "hearts and minds" of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists. In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs.
…Those who argue that our goals in Iraq are unachievable are wrong, just as they were wrong a year ago when they declared the war in Iraq already lost. Since June 2007 sectarian and ethnic violence in Iraq has been reduced by 90 percent. Overall civilian deaths have been reduced by more than 70 percent. Deaths of coalition forces have fallen by 70 percent. The dramatic reduction in violence has opened the way for a return to something approaching normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi. People are going back to work. Markets are open. Oil revenues are climbing. Inflation is down. Iraq's economy is expected to grown by roughly 7 percent in 2008. Political reconciliation is occurring across Iraq at the local and provincial grassroots level. Sunni and Shi'a chased from their homes by terrorist and sectarian violence are returning. Political progress at the national level has been far too slow, but there is progress.
Critics say that the "surge" of troops isn't a solution in itself, that we must make progress toward Iraqi self-sufficiency. I agree. Iraqis themselves must increasingly take responsibility for their own security, and they must become responsible political actors. It does not follow from this, however, that we should now recklessly retreat from Iraq regardless of the consequences. We must take the course of prudence and responsibility, and help Iraqis move closer to the day when they no longer need our help.
That is the route of responsible statesmanship. We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq. It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal. Our critics say America needs to repair its image in the world. How can they argue at the same time for the morally reprehensible abandonment of our responsibilities in Iraq?
March 26, 2008 Remarks to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council
As you know, I was in Iraq, Jordan, Israel, France and England on my last visit. And a couple of days ago, as you probably know, an audiotape -- actually it was last week -- an audiotape was released where bin Laden said, and I have to quote bin Laden, ... 'the nearest field to support our people in Palestine is the Iraqi field.' He urged Palestinians and people of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to quote 'help in support of their mujahedeen brothers in Iraq, which is the greatest opportunity and the biggest task.' Now my friends, for the first time I have seen Osama bin Laden and General Petraeus in agreement, and that is, the central battleground in the battle against al Qaeda is in Iraq today. And that's what bin Laden is saying and that's what General Petraeus is saying and that's what I'm saying, my friends, and my Democrat opponents who want to pull out of Iraq refuse to understand what's being said and what's happening, and that is, the central battleground is Iraq in this struggle against radical Islamic extremism."
March 24, 2008 Statement on Iraq
Both Senator Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal. That means chaos. That means genocide…That means undoing all the success we've achieved, and Al-Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America. I won't let that happen, as president of the United States.
[on the surge] It's a strategy we should have employed from the beginning, and neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton had any experience of knowledge to know that this surge would succeed.
March 14, 2008 CNN interview
[On the 100 years comment] "Of course, that comment of mine was distorted. Life isn't fair, as Jack Kennedy said…I was talking about American presence after the war."
[We will win] "fairly soon."
No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties…I think, generally speaking, we have a more secure world thanks to American presence, particularly in Asia, by the way, as we see the rising influence of China…But the key to it is American casualties, America's most precious asset, and that is American blood.
February 28, 2008 Rice University Town Hall Meeting
[Terrorism is] "the great transcendent evil of the 21st century -- more widespread than it was before 9/11."
February 25, 2008 Speech in Rocky River, Ohio
My friends, the war [in Iraq] will be over soon…The insurgency will go on for years and years and years. But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us…And then we decide what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis…We will succeed in this conflict and then we will enter into negotiations and discussions as far as the military in other relationships between our two countries.
February 25, 2008 Town Hall Meeting outside of Cleveland, Ohio
I want to look you in the eye and tell you I will never ever surrender; they will…If I have to follow him to the gates of Hell, I will get Osama bin Laden, and I will bring him to justice.
February 15, 2008 Speech to the Wisconsin Republican Party
[Iranian ambitions] "are as old as history: a Persian domination of the region."
February 9-10, 2008 Panel discussion, "Bush's Choice"
[North Korea has] "the most horrible regime probably on earth."
[The regime] “that has got hundreds of thousands of people in the gulag. They’re terrible…So the regime offends me, just in their terrible mistreatment and abuse of their own people."
[Asked if he would remove North Korea from a list of state sponsors of terrorism if they abandon their nuclear program] "I would not. I didn’t believe in the [1994] KEDO agreement that president [Bill] Clinton made, and I don’t believe in this one."
January 8, 2008 Pajamas Media Interview
Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years —
McCain: Make it a hundred.
Questioner: Is that …
McCain: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.
January 3, 2008 Remarks at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire
These are the battles we should be fighting. This is the future we should be building. But it's going to be hard to do all this so long as we're spending $10 billion a month fighting a war in Iraq that should have never been authorized and never been waged. I opposed this war from the start. I've opposed it each year it's been going on. And that's why I'm the one candidate who will offer a real choice in November because I can stand up to John McCain with credibility and say no to a 100-year occupation of Iraq, and no to a third Bush term. It's time to bring out troops home.
April 2, 2008 Speech in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Now, let me be clear: when I am President, I will spare no expense to ensure that our troops have the equipment and support they need. There is no higher obligation for a Commander-in-Chief. But we also have to understand that the more than $10 billion we're spending each month in Iraq is money we could be investing here at home. Just think about what battles we could be fighting instead of fighting this misguided war.
Instead of fighting this war, we could be fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and who are plotting against us in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We could be securing our homeland and stopping the world's most dangerous weapons from falling into terrorist hands.
…And our obligation to rebuild our military will endure as well. This war has stretched our military to its limits, wearing down troops and equipment as a result of tour after tour after tour of duty. The Army has said it will need $13 billion a year just to replace and repair all the equipment that's been broken or lost. So in the coming years we won't just have to restore our military to its peak level of readiness, and we won't just have to make sure our National Guard is back to being fully prepared to handle a domestic crisis, we'll also have to ensure that our soldiers are trained and equipped to confront the new threats of the 21 century and that our military can meet any challenge around the world.
March 20, 2008 Speech in Charleston, WV
Just before America's entry into World War I, President Woodrow Wilson addressed Congress: "It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war," he said. "...But the right is more precious than peace." Wilson's words captured two awesome responsibilities that test any Commander-in-Chief - to never hesitate to defend America, but to never go to war unless you must. War is sometimes necessary, but it has grave consequences, and the judgment to go to war can never be undone.
So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden- as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.
In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy. What I propose is not - and never has been - a precipitous drawdown. It is instead a detailed and prudent plan that will end a war nearly seven years after it started.
It is not too late to prevail in Afghanistan. But we cannot prevail until we reduce our commitment in Iraq, which will allow us to do what I called for last August - providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts in Afghanistan. This increased commitment in turn can be used to leverage greater assistance - with fewer restrictions - from our NATO allies. It will also allow us to invest more in training Afghan security forces, including more joint NATO operations with the Afghan Army, and a national police training plan that is effectively coordinated and resourced.
A stepped up military commitment must be backed by a long-term investment in the Afghan people. We will start with an additional $1 billion in non military assistance each year - aid that is focused on reaching ordinary Afghans. We need to improve daily life by supporting education, basic infrastructure and human services. We have to counter the opium trade by supporting alternative livelihoods for Afghan farmers. And we must call on more support from friends and allies, and better coordination under a strong international coordinator."
March 19, 2008 Speech in Fayetteville, NC
I welcome the UN Security Council's decision to increase international pressure on Iran because of its continued defiance of the international community and its illicit nuclear program. However, like its two predecessors, this resolution represents a lowest common denominator because Russia and China did not agree to tougher sanctions.
Iran's nuclear ambitions pose a serious threat to the United States, to our ally Israel and to international security. We urgently need to pursue a strategy of aggressive diplomacy that includes direct discussions with Iran in which we lay out clear terms, with disincentives and incentives tied to Iran's actions. If Iran continues its defiance of the international community, we should work for tougher sanctions - within and outside of the UN - to ratchet up economic pressure on Iran, while also strengthening unilateral measures like divestment. One step that we can take right now to increase pressure on the Iranian regime is for the Senate to pass my Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which will make it easier for states to divest their pension funds from Iran. If Iran verifiably abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we should consider economic incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization and political incentives like full diplomatic relations. Throughout any diplomatic strategy, we should keep all options on the table, while avoiding any unnecessary saber rattling.
March 4, 2008 Remarks in Chicago, IL
[on Iraq] I will bring the war to an end in 2009.
February 18, 2008 Speech at Youngstown State University
