In 2008, Palin said she was qualified in foreign affairs because she could see Russia from her back yard. In 2016, Trump said he was qualified in foreign affairs because he had worked for beauty pageants in foreign countries. The Constitution makes the President the head of foreign policy in the U.S. Are these really the standards we can now accept as adequate in a candidate for President of the U.S.? Does anyone out there considering voting for Trump really think these credentials qualify him to deal with the complex life and death issues in disputes between nations?
You want my honest opinion? No one from the halls of Congress is vested in the complexities that would allow them to make the best decisions. Not even anyone on the Foreign Senate Committee. Why? Situations fluctuate, the information that the Senate has, is different from the information the Oval Office has(See: Iraq invasion debates). In fact, the Senate relied on the information from the Oval Office. Which you'd think would be okay if not for nefarious purposes such as the Bush Administration. But generally speaking, ANYONE who runs for President has a steep hill to climb and their first 100 days is mostly on briefing with regards to these facts.(See: Succession to Jimmy Carter, and how Reagan replied that he wasn't qualified to comment on the Iranian hostage situation because talks were ongoing) Even Obama's transition team had to deal with these situations and a change in course in some instances was needed, even as he campaigned otherwise.(The Iraq war and ending it for example, has proven to be one of those things. Bush was right about what leaving a vacuum in Iraq would cause.) So, given that no candidate will ever truly be ready, how can we judge a person's foreign policy credentials. Actually, more specifically: How can we judge their foreign policy? In my opinion, it's philosophy. Is the candidate making sense? Is the candidate's sense of the world the same as the world actually is? In other words, can we replace idealism with pragmatism? Ideally, this means the candidate is reasonable enough to get a feel for what other countries want and need. The US isn't the only one wanting independence from the current system. Japan does want a modern military force, they also want to enjoy the peace they've enjoyed in the Heiwa era. So it's a bit of a balancing act, but I think we can accomplish this and maintain the strong ties we've always had. A strong and independent Japan is also very much in the US interest. For a true ally in the region is only as effective as their military and political capability. With a strengthened Japan, along side the US, it would serve as a bulwark against North Korean and Chinese expansion in the area.(A "check") if you will. It also gives us the kind of diplomatic pressure and initiative to woo China to our side as well. And that's very crucial. China on the side of the US means we can further pressure North Korea to renounce its nuclear weapons program, to be peaceful with its Asian neighbors and more importantly with us and to start investing in their country and not bombs. For the US to remain a world super power, it needs other powers to be separate from each other, as well as a cordial peace within the regions. The last time a world power dissolved(Great Britain), it was due to two factors: Cost and war. The US is headed in the same direction. And the Neo-con is not poised to correct it. No, in Hillary's mind more military force is whats needed to preserve US hegemony. But it's diplomatic initatives, followed by an understanding(and manipulating) of the geopolitical map that will define the new century.
