Any conversation about U.S. foreign policy would have to begin with the war in Iraq. What plan do the leading candidates have for troop withdrawal? How do the candidates’ records compare to their current positions?

The debate about troop withdrawal clearly splits down the aisle, with the Democrats calling for troop withdrawal while the Republicans are maintaining that securing Iraq and winning the war on terror requires a strong U.S. military presence. There are, however, some differences among each of the candidates, particularly when you look at their records on Iraq.

Senator Obama did not have the opportunity to vote in Congress on the original authorization for war, although during his campaign for Senate he did speak out against it. Since his tenure in office, he has managed to maintain a consistent effort against the war, culminating with several votes for proposed legislation in 2007 that sought some degree of troop withdrawal/reduction. If elected president, we could expect that he would institute this plan, probably decreasing the number of troops to minimum levels over the course of 12 to 15 months, while pursuing aggressive diplomacy to achieve political goals both in Iraq and the region.

Having originally voted for the use of force against Iraq in 2002, Senator Clinton has changed her position on the war. She now supports a phased withdrawal effort which she claims will begin within the first two months of her time in office. She has provided details of a three step plan that begins with troop reductions, moves to increasing stability through aid and follows on with strong diplomacy at the regional level. Over the last two years, Senator Clinton has consistently held the position of needing to reduce troop numbers in Iraq, supporting emergency appropriations when attached to troop withdrawal provisions.

Former Senator Edwards also voted for the use of force against Iraq in 2002, a decision he has claimed to regret. Since he has been out of Congress, his record is supported by consistently strong rhetoric advocating an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. According to his plan, the U.S. would leave between 3,000 and 5,000 troops to protect the U.S. embassy and humanitarian workers.

For the Republicans, Senator McCain's position stands in stark contrast to the Democrats. He believes that any withdrawal would be devastating to both U.S. and Iraqi interests, strengthening the power of Al Qaeda in the region. In fact, McCain has consistently argued that there are not enough troops in Iraq to accomplish the goals set forth by the Bush administration. He has consistently voted against any timetables or phased withdrawals proposed by the Democrats.

Former Governor Mitt Romney supported President Bush and the Congress in the decision to invade Iraq. He is opposed to withdrawal, claiming this would lead to large scale civil war and regional instability. He has continuously supported the President's position on Iraq. Additionally, he wants to increase the size of the military by 100,000 which might imply he has little intention of leaving Iraq anytime soon. Put in clearer perspective, however, both Senators McCain and Obama also have plans to enlarge the size of the military by similar numbers.

Former Governor Huckabee’s plans are very similar to Romney’s. He is opposed to a troop withdrawal for similar reasons and supports the surge approach. Additionally, he has made a call for regional cooperation in the struggle for Iraqi stability.

People should keep in mind that all of the leading candidates are unlikely to completely remove the troops from Iraq in the short term, since that would pose serious security risks to both the Iraqi government and U.S. personnel in the country. There will most likely remain enough troops to continue the training of the Iraqi military and fighting of insurgents for the foreseeable future.

Unrest on the African continent has been a common theme for many years, from Rwanda to Sudan, and recently Kenya. Have any of the major candidates formulated a policy for assisting the citizens of these countries against tyranny, oppression, even genocide?

The belief in democratization and economic development as the way to move forward in Africa and eliminate the internal struggles (political, ethnic, etc…) is something that resonates deeply with all the candidates. Unfortunately during the election campaign season, these types of concerns are not as paramount to attracting voters who are, for many good reasons, focused on other issues. Thus somewhat expectedly, the leading candidates from both parties have not spent much energy on laying out concrete plans dealing with the types of problems that exist throughout the continent. To the extent that these problems are discussed, they are talked about in generalities. In other words one will often hear phrases like "the U.S. must support efforts at democratization in order to ensure peace and stability…" or "as President I will pressure those governments who deny their people freedom…" and so on. While undoubtedly genuine, such comments lack any real acknowledgement of the problems faced in many parts of Africa.

An overall comparison of the Republicans and Democrats does suggest two sets of motivations in the candidates’ discussions of Africa. For the Republicans, most concerns center on instability in areas such as the Horn of Africa, specifically instability that might lead to terrorist groups establishing training bases and/or safe havens. Thus, most Republican plans will be consistent with their plans dealing with terrorism. This means increased economic aid to vulnerable areas, in addition to increased military assistance to foreign governments facing these threats. Romney, for example, has proposed a program in which small groups of U.S. Army Special Forces work with local governments to prepare strategies against terrorists and insurgents. Huckabee supports current efforts of the U.S. Special Operations Command in such areas like Somalia where similar types of cooperation have been undertaken with the government of Ethiopia and moderates inside Somalia.

While the Democrats also seem to be concerned about instability and potential safe havens, most of their focus has been on human rights and development. Senator Clinton, for example, has prepared a plan for U.S assistance in Darfur and has attempted to influence President Bush in this regard. Given that HIV/AIDS transmission is a vital issue in parts of Africa as well, it should be pointed out that Clinton has proposed plans to reduce HIV transmission both in Africa and the U.S. She also has paid particular attention to implementing a rather aggressive anti-malaria program in the region. Former Senator Edwards has presented plans to deal with child poverty on a global level as well as plans for ending the conflicts in Darfur and Uganda. Throughout his campaign he has voiced his concerns with the inability of the U.S. to make headway in these areas. Obama’s comments and plans reflect those of his fellow candidates. Of particular note is his plan to double foreign aid directed toward promoting the development of infrastructure, democracy, education and public health, much of which would be directed toward Africa. Specifically, this would amount to about $50 billion dollars over the next four or five years.

President George W. Bush has outlined an “Axis of Evil” during his time as president, which includes North Korea and Iran. On the other hand, Pakistan remains an ally in the “War on Terror”, despite essentially being led by a dictatorship. Do you see any of the candidates altering the U.S. position on any of these nations’ governments? Have any articulated a stance on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

It seems pretty clear that the leading Republican candidates will continue in large degree the current policies of the Bush administration vis-à-vis these particular governments. All of the leading candidates, however, have argued for putting more pressure on President Musharraf with respect to fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban along the border, although the details of what they would do have been less clear. The Democrats have all expressed a greater willingness to engage in diplomacy with these states over security issues and to put more pressure on Pakistan to democratize.

In terms of non-proliferation, the Republicans have emphasized different dimensions. Romney's non-proliferation concerns have strongly focused on nuclear terrorism and Iran in particular. His plan for dealing with Iran is to increase economic sanctions and further isolate Iran. Of course, he has made it clear that military options remain on the table. Finally, he has also suggested creating an ambassador-level position to address/prevent nuclear terrorism. McCain is a staunch supporter of ballistic missile defense (BMD) as a way to deal with the “Axis of Evil” and other rogue states. This is in spite of many who would argue that support of such a program limits the effectiveness of the NPT and increases the desire of rogue states to acquire WMD. McCain’s position, however, is that this would help supplement an NPT that appears to be weakening anyway.

Mike Huckabee has not articulated very much of his position on non-proliferation. If one takes a look at his website, he actually seems more concerned about Fidel Castro than events in Iran and North Korea. While Huckabee's position is not as specified as the other two Republicans, an educated guess suggests it would involve support for ballistic missile defense and strengthening our efforts against potential nuclear terrorism.

As it pertains to the Democrats, Obama appears committed to strengthening the NPT, hoping to reduce U.S. arsenals as part of the effort to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. His key to strengthening the NPT appears to be in enforcing international sanctions although he has not laid out a clear plan in which that would happen. Clinton also has argued for reducing both U.S and Russian arsenals to set an example for non-proliferation efforts. Obama, Clinton and Edwards have pledged to seek approval for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to end nuclear testing. Both Obama and Clinton have also mentioned developing an international nuclear fuel bank to reduce proliferation.

All of the candidates are committed to more funding and efforts at limiting access to nuclear materials in an effort to reduce the possibility of nuclear terrorism. Readers should also remember that all the candidates will need to further address nuclear energy as well, as it is the likely source for increased energy needs both in the U.S. and abroad. Increased use, however, also means additional security concerns. The Republican candidates all support nuclear energy development. The Democratic candidates have been less clear about promoting nuclear energy thus far, at least in terms of public debate.

Oil prices are apparently set on a path to break records, with help from OPEC and leaders like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. What are the major candidates planning to do to address the world market for oil, and how do they plan to handle the emerging economies in India and China and their growing need for energy?

None of the candidates have strongly distinguished themselves from their party opponents, with McCain among the Republicans as the possible exception. For both parties' candidates, the focus isn't so much on how to handle the emerging economies; it's been on how to handle the U.S. economy. As such, they have all discussed plans for energy independence. Mike Huckabee has been bold enough to suggest we will be energy independent by his second term in office (optimistic on two fronts to be sure). Thus, it seems safe to state that both parties and politicians in general are realizing the key to the energy problems we face lies mostly within. They all support government investments in new energy technologies such as clean coal and bio-fuels. Additionally, all of the candidates view the energy problem as a national security one, particularly given U.S. vulnerabilities in needing oil from the Middle East. As the Republicans have suggested, it seems nonsensical to fight a war on terror while at the same time providing the cash to “fuel” the enemy’s efforts (via petrodollars from sympathetic governments).

The leading Republicans also support energy development alternatives to include nuclear power development and drilling for oil both offshore and in places like Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. In contrast, the Democrats have focused on energy efficiency as one way to offset the need for production. Another difference from the Republicans (except McCain) exists in the Democrats desire to eliminate government subsidies to oil companies. The Republicans would argue that these subsidies ensure continuous research and development by oil companies that might not otherwise do so. As we see on television nowadays, the oil companies certainly want to convey that message.

The energy concerns as they do relate to growing powers like India and China involve the impacts on the environment. Limiting greenhouse gas emissions has become an important issue this campaign cycle. Again, how to do this tends to break along party lines more than within them. The Democrats believe the U.S. needs to demonstrate leadership regarding greenhouse gases by implementing such programs as cap and trade which would allow countries to buy emission allotments from others. This would follow signing global treaties like the Kyoto Protocol. Obama has planned a multilateral forum by the largest emitters to address the issue as a global problem. The Republicans seem willing to engage in the debate on emissions but are more concerned with the unfair advantages that might be given to China or India if the U.S. pays for its reduction of emissions through stricter standards while they do not. This has been and will be one of the largest concerns by the Republicans in signing multilateral treaties on emissions as it potentially represents a threat to the U.S. industrial economic base. McCain, however, does support a cap and trade program as part of a larger energy strategy which reduces the U.S. reliance on oil.