Click here for more debate from Times Online and the Battle for Ideas

There is no doubt who would win the American elections if non-Americans could cast their votes on the 4th of November. While Republican candidate John McCain is derided as Bush Mark II, Obama is wildly popular in Europe. He is also widely believed to be the candidate who will embark on a far less aggressive and unilateral foreign policy.

American liberals are equally hopeful that President Obama will restore American legitimacy abroad. And to cap it all, Colin Powell, Bush’s former foreign policy number one, has given his support to Obama. Powell has stated that one of the main reasons that he decided on his endorsement was because Obama would be the best candidate to repair relations with America’s foreign allies.

However, before anyone lets fly the doves of peace for an Obama presidency, let’s ask just what is it that Obama has promised in terms of foreign policy. Will the new Commander-in-Chief really mothball America’s fighter planes?

Much is made of Obama’s anti-Iraq war stance and it is true that Obama has appeared to be more willing than McCain to speak to Iran. Obama also seemed to take a less immediately hawkish line than McCain over the recent Russia- Georgia conflict.

Yet Obama’s supposedly anti-war credentials are difficult to find. Obama voted twice to continue the war in Iraq and has stated that he will be willing to launch a military intervention in Pakistan, with or without the consent of that country, in order to pursue Al-Qaeda. When Bush pledged to act both unilaterally and preemptively in the infamous 2002 National Security Strategy document, liberals world wide fell into paroxysms of anger. Yet Obama has made exactly the same pledges in his major policy statement.

Those who hope for a far more peaceful presidency would do well to recall the last Democratic President of America, Bill Clinton. In comparison to Clinton, Bush junior is an amateur in the war mongering stakes. Clinton bombed and/or sent soldiers to the following countries: Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Iraq. Not just content with military intervention, he also sponsored years of deadly sanctions against Iraq. These destroyed its economy and infrastructure and impoverished millions of Iraqis. Who can forget Clinton’s then Secretary of State’s answer to a question about the resulting death of half a million Iraqi children? Madeline Albright said that the American government believed that the price was worth it.

Clinton’s wars were of course wars for ‘values’ rather than what are perceived to be Bush’s two wars for oil or strategic interests. Obama’s major policy statement, Renewing American Leadership, is full of promises to help spread American values. He also pledges to renew American leadership diplomatically, morally and militarily. No one should be under any illusion that a victory for the Democratic presidential candidate will mean an end to unilateral and aggressive military interventions overseas.

---

Join the Debate: Read Oliver Kamm on Why America is still the world's policeman

---

Tara McCormack is a lecturer in international relations and politics at Brunel University