I think it’s safe to guess that there aren’t many Liberal Democrats who are fans of George W Bush’s foreign policy, whether it is on Iraq, international action on climate change or a host of lower-profile issues. However, would a victory by either Clinton or Obama bring about a US foreign policy that Liberal Democrats would be more comfortable with?
Saturday night’s New Hampshire debate saw both of the leading Democrat candidates espouse foreign policy views likely to be highly controversial. Obama repeated his support (previously criticised by Lib Dem MP Lynne Featherstone) for unilateral military action against parts of Pakistan, whilst Clinton said of Pakistan, “If you remove Musharraf and have elections, that’s going to be very difficult for the United States to be able to control what comes next”. That reads like a case of ‘democracy? only if the US can control the outcome, thank you very much.’ Not perhaps the most liberal or democratic of criteria to use…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How four bison brought new life to ancient woodland in Kent
How many councillors has Reform UK lost since the May 2026 elections?
Peter Martin
Alex Macfie
David Evans
Matt Wardman
7 Comments
Mark raises a very important issue. Too often Democrats feel the need to behave tough to assuage domestic pressures. There is however clear water between Obama and Hillary on Iran, with Obama largely ruling out an attack and Hillary doing the opposite.
I don’t think liberals would be satisfied with much from the Democratic candidates or the Republican candidates.
At the moment the Democrats are the least worst option, but they are dominated by anti-liberal populism as much as the Republicans. They’re just more socially liberal, but we know that means nothing when it comes to the broader picture. They are far more Labour like than Liberal Democrat like, except even more populist…
Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start, supports diplomacy with Iran without preconditions, and says that he will “set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it”.
Obama gets my vote (so to speak).
Hmmm, tough choise. Choose Clinton and intervention in Iran, Choose Obama and intervention in Pakistan. Does anybody know about the views of John Edwards?
So far my favourite would be the Republican Ron Paul a.k.a. “Dr. No”, who advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy and voted against the Iraq War Resolution, but I know he doesn’t have a realistic chance to win.
Lets have a democratically elected Pakistan which allows terrorists to occupy areas of it.
We can all hide behind the mask of democracy.
It is unfortunately the case that the most important priority as far as Pakistan is concerned is to make sure that their nuclear weapons do not get into the wrong hands.
If this happens, the consequences for the world are potentially devestating.
This presents some very difficult choices. Democracy in Pakistan has a history of being unstable – the last thing we need. It is also true that dictators have also not lasted long either.
In this context it is easier to say what not to do. Having rejected the neo-conservatism that led to the invasion of Iraq, it would be madness for Barak Obama to support it – or something like it – in a unilateral bombing campaign in Pakistan. Broadly speaking I support Barak Obama, but I hope that should he get into power someone can talk him out of this madness. The biggest problem with Barak Obama is his lack of experience, particularly on foreign policy.
Geoffrey Payne: “Broadly speaking I support Barak Obama, but I hope that should he get into power someone can talk him out of this madness.”
You hope so? And what if no-one talks him out of his madness? That’s all-right, as well, as long as Obama will be president?