Life after Bush - the options

The administration of US President George W Bush has presided over the largest defence spending increase in three decades, with the colossal growth in expenditure driven by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the future of the United States' mission in those countries may be foremost on the minds of voters in the presidential election later this year, the three main candidates have also raised more fundamental questions about the US role in the world.

Since 2003, the war in Iraq has pre-occupied the US national security establishment to the detriment of all else, but the rise of China and Russia, the potential for the emergence of new regional adversaries such as Iran and the persistence of transnational terrorist threats are now recognised as challenges requiring a global response. Regardless of who takes over the White House in November, repairing its image abroad is emerging as a priority in US politics.

All three contenders - Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, as well as Democratic challengers Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton - have distanced themselves to varying degrees from the Bush administration's national security agenda.

Basic differences have also emerged among the candidates themselves. McCain, a Vietnam War veteran and ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has parted ways with Democrats by supporting a prolonged US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has also taken a hawkish stance towards potential US adversaries, generally preferring containment policies to engagement. In contrast, both Democratic candidates favour a speedy withdrawal from Iraq and believe that engagement with troublesome regimes may bring the latter closer to the West.

Disparities between the candidates will likely sharpen in the coming months as the general election approaches. While the Democrats have yet to settle on a candidate, the two major parties are poised for a major showdown over Iraq policy and the future of US strategy once the nominations are secured.

In early April 2008 General David Petraeus, commander of Multi-National Force - Iraq, visited Washington, DC, to deliver a key progress report on Iraq. The Senate hearings offered all three candidates a chance to spell out their views on the war - and their proposals for a way forward.

Perhaps more than any other legislator, McCain has closely identified with the Iraq 'surge': a plan enacted in 2007 to send additional combat brigades to Iraq. Prior to the surge, McCain complained that the US lacked sufficient troop strength to combat the insurgency (and memorably described US forces as playing a game of "whack-a-mole" against insurgents). While overall levels of violence in Iraq decreased following the surge, 2007 was the bloodiest year on record there for US troops. As a candidate, McCain has pledged to bolster the US military commitment in Iraq.

Warning of the risks of US withdrawal, McCain has called for a "more robust" counter-insurgency strategy. While he says he does not want to keep troops in Iraq "a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests", his platform promises a heavy US presence for the foreseeable future.

McCain backs Gen Petraeus, who has recommended a pause in troop drawdowns to preserve Iraq's "fragile" progress. He also favours continued support to Sunni Arab volunteers (the so-called 'Awakening' movement) aligned with the US; accelerated assistance to Iraqi security forces; and increased pressure on Iran and Syria.

Obama and Clinton, by contrast, have called for withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq, although both have indicated they might keep some forces in the region to conduct more limited counterterrorism operations.

Image: George W Bush in the uniform of Commander-in-Chief 589 of 3,600 words