by Mike Dorning
Barack Obama is back on the campaign trail after a nine-day international tour that included visits to Iraq and Afghanistan, meetings with leaders in the Middle East and Europe and a speech to a crowd of more than 200,000 in Berlin. On the flight home, the Illinois senator sat down with Tribune correspondent Mike Dorning.
Shelling pistachios and popping them into his mouth as his campaign plane crossed the Atlantic, he spoke about how an Obama presidency could change America's image abroad, speculated on how the trip will play out politically at home, and defended himself against criticism that the international tour was presumptuous.
An edited version of the interview follows. The questions in some cases are paraphrased for brevity and clarity.
Q. After you've made this trip, can you now visualize yourself making the case for America abroad as president?
A. I visualized myself in the role before the trip. I think what the trip hopefully allowed the American people to do is visualize me doing it as well, and to feel comfortable and confident that I can work on the world stage effectively.
Q. And did you do that?
A. Well, I think that the meetings I had with some of our critical allies went well. They came out with a clear sense of my foreign (policy) approach.... They may not have agreed on every point I made, but I think that they concluded I understood their situation.
Q. Can you change the way America is viewed in the world?
A. Yes.
Q. How quickly?
A. I don't think I can transform it completely. I don't think that, suddenly, just because I'm president, German and French citizens are eager to send their troops off to war....But I do think that both in terms of substance and tone I can project an American foreign policy that listens, doesn't just attempt to dictate, a foreign policy that balances idealism with realism.
Q. Did you pick up hostility to the US in this trip?
A. I don't think there's hostility towards America. I think there is frustration over certain American policy choices.
Q. Was this trip presumptuous?
A. No, look, look, after John McCain won the nomination, he met with these same world leaders, took these same trips, and for good measure went to Canada, Mexico and Colombia, places all of which he spoke and tried to project his foreign policy. Nobody accused him of being presumptuous. I don't think it's presumptuous.
Q. So it's not presumptuous?
A. I'm running for president of the United States. I want to give the American people and people around the world some sense of what my agenda would be as president. Do you think John McCain's trips have been presumptuous?
Q. What was the political value of the trip?
A. I don't think that short-term it was a useful political advantage. You know, I think people right now are worried about gas prices. They're worried about the rising costs of groceries. So I think that spending a week overseas exacts a price politically. But what I do think is that over the long term a trip like this will perhaps give some voters more confidence when they go to the polls in November that I can function effectively on the global stage.
Q. Optimistic rhetoric aside, what do we do in Afghanistan if the Europeans don't commit more troops?
A. You know, we will do what we need to do with a combination of our troops, NATO troops, coordinating them more effectively, as well as working more effectively in training and building up an Afghan army and dealing more effectively with Pakistan so that they are cooperating in shutting down these terrorist safe havens that have been established in the border regions of Pakistan.
Q. Can you make progress without more European troops?
A. Let's take the couple thousand that have already been committed first. Let's send two briagades, an additional 7,000 or so (U.S. soldiers), that we've committed. Let's get the Afghan government to work more effectively and deal with corruption, the poppy trade. And let's get Pakistan better aligned with our goals there. Let's do those things and see what kind of progress we can make.
Q. What happens if the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran after the election but before the inauguration? Should the president-elect have a role in a decision like that?
A. I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals....I will tell you that Iran should not wait for the next administration to get serious about negotiating with the international community.
Q. And Hamas? What should be our approach?
A. I continue to believe we should not negotiate directly with an organization that is...not a recognized state government, that hasn't acknowledged Israel and that practices terrorism.
Q. Israel has negotiated with Hamas about Gaza, in talks sponsored by Egypt.
A. Well, I think Israel has to make some heart-wrenching, difficult decisions, and I respect them for making those decisions. I think that we've got to send a clear message that as we work in the region that we will talk to all comers, but if it's a non-state actor then there's got to be some utility or expectation of progress. I don't see that with Hamas at this point.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
After this trip, more Americans should see thru this empty suit and realize what is going on! Never before has an American Senator or even regular citizen shunned the American flag when visiting foreign soil. Even Angilenia visits our troups! That was a rediculas move on Nobamas' part and to cozy up to the idiots of France is just another example! He is NOT presidential material, and he should disappear into the night after the latest shuns of America!
Posted by: henry | July 28, 2008 8:24 AM
Henry, when you talk so immaturely, using fake names and ridiculous flag and patriotism accusations, you do yourself no good.
Obama did visit the troops, but due to the Pentagon chose not to force the entourage down their throats and be accused of manipulating injured troops for political gain. This is the MORE responsible thing to do. And the American flag issue - you sir, are ignorant. When non-president dignitaries are received by foreign leaders, they don't unfurl the flag for them - that's reserved for presidents.
Neither of the candidates are empty suits. Neither of them deserve fake, childish name-calling.
Posted by: Joe | July 28, 2008 9:16 AM
I think he did a great job on his trip, and can't understand the pundits who criticize him about where he went or who he met with.
Face it - he is going to be our next president.
Posted by: Susan | July 28, 2008 9:19 AM
Trust me, outside of the MEDIA, people ARE getting it.
Something Media keeps pretty hush hush, is that we angered many when we first talked of going to war in Iraq. The reason for that, is that there were soooooo many companies making a massive amount of money on Iraq and it's food program and oil. It was a diry business. Look it up yourself.
I don't have to pick a president who will thrill everyone. That isn't an issue for me after finding out how corrupt the U.N. was and why these countries were against the war effort. Obama, doesn't realize that budding up with all these people has nothing to do with America trusting him as a better leader. All they have to do is look up the United Nations scandal regarding the Iraq war.
Posted by: Teresa | July 28, 2008 9:26 AM
Teresa, and who profited the most? American contractors.
Who got the top 5 oil contracts? American oil companies.
Mission accomplished?
Posted by: Joe | July 28, 2008 10:44 AM
Joe-they all profitted, and the thing that I like to point out, is that BUSH wasn't a part of those making money hand over fist. That was such an ugly thing with the U.N., there were others in different countries that didn't get charged as they should have. I still recall all the cries in the media that other countries don't agree, like we have done a criminal thing, THEN, I looked all this up. I would like to say I got my info from the press but I got it on my own.
Posted by: Teresa | July 28, 2008 12:51 PM
Henry:
- what do you mean by 'shunned the American flag'?
- yes, some Americans don't agree with certain US policies, and say so if asked while travelling abroad. This does not make them 'bad Americans'. On the contrary, they are exercising their right to question their government and speak freely, which are both important American rights, not available to many foreigners elsewhere until recently.
- when did Obama 'shun' the american flag? Still, I have no idea what that means.
- why is building a relationship with foreign allies such as France a 'rediculas' (ridiculous) thing? Just becuase a dialogue is opened does not mean we are 'cozying up' to them.
- Why does any of this make him non-Presidential material?
- How is McCain better suited for it?
- Are you Karl Rove in disguise?
Posted by: Greg | July 28, 2008 1:14 PM
henry get a grip...
just because no one would walk across the street to see your current president or your republican candidate does not mean you have to be such a d*** about it!
Posted by: mcb | July 28, 2008 9:14 PM