There are breathless analyses by reporters and cable news anchors about the ebb and flow of the contest for President based on the latest polling.

Obama is ahead, McCain is catching up, Obama’s trip overseas was either a great boon or a great bust, McCain’s forceful ads have put Obama on the defensive.

Hold your horses. There is less movement than is portrayed. Perhaps none at all.

Let’s look as some of the polling.

A CBS News poll released August 6 shows Obama leading McCain 45% to 39%. After all the too’ing and fro’ing in the past month, the findings are unchanged since a CBS/New York Times poll released on July 15. Indeed, that six point spread was unchanged from June when the poll had Obama ahead 48% to 42%.

A Time Magazine poll also released August 6 shows Obama ahead 46% to 41%. As the story reported, “Obama’s margin in the Time poll is the same as in its June survey.”

And of course there was at least one poll showing that McCain has inched ahead and others showing that Obama has a wider or narrower lead.

What does all this mean?

Is Obama ahead? Probably so by a few points.

Has Obama locked up the race? Most certainly not.

Has McCain with his new aggressive tactics caught up? Probably not.

How much should you believe polls? With several grains of salt, unless you are on a low sodium diet.

As well-respected pollster Mark Mellman recently wrote, “beware of stories told about this or any other election based on poll changes.”

And one more reminder: there is not a presidential election in the United States but rather 51 state elections (counting Washington DC as a state for electoral purposes). Thus the more important polls are those in key states.

What do the state polls show?

See above.

John Isaacs Executive Director, Council for a Livable World & Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

The two major presidential candidates left standing would make major changes to the national security and foreign policies carried out by the George W. Bush administration over the last seven years. Not surprisingly, exactly what kind of changes depends on who ends up on the steps of Capitol Hill taking the oath of office in January 2009 — Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).

The following analysis is based on several indicators: the candidates’ U.S. Senate voting records; their national security platforms as laid out in articles, op-eds and speeches; and their responses to queries in debates, public appearances, and questionnaires. Although campaign pledges and voting records do not always accurately translate into actual policy, they can provide important clues as to the future president’s inclinations.
IRAQ WAR

The war in Iraq has produced the sharpest divisions between the two candidates on the 2008 campaign trail. When the next president takes office, he will face major decisions about Iraq, where the United States will have been for almost six years, and where it is likely that upward of 140,000 U.S. troops will still remain.

John McCain cosponsored the 2002 vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq, arguing at the time that Saddam Hussein was “a threat of the first order.” Although he was a vehement critic of the administration’s “mismanagement and failure” during the early war years, he advocated the surge of additional troops to Iraq and the need to stay as long as necessary to win the war. He joined with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) to pen an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Surge Worked.” He has suggested that his Democratic opponents advocate “surrender” by calling for a withdrawal timetable and billed his campaign as the “No Surrender Tour.” McCain has proposed that the U.S. military’s 50-plus years in South Korea, Japan and Germany is a good model for Iraq.

In 2002, when he was an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama opposed the war. However, after he was elected to the U.S. Senate, he voted against early proposals by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and others to set a timetable for withdrawal; now Obama votes consistently in favor of establishing a timetable. Obama’s plan for exiting Iraq would send home one or two combat brigades a month, with most combat troops out by the end of 2009. At an MSNBC debate in September 2007, Obama refused to guarantee that he would have all U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of his first term. Obama has also opposed permanent bases in Iraq.
IRAN POLICY

President Bush has displayed unremitting hostility toward the radical regime dominating Iran, a country that U.S. intelligence sources report had previously been pursuing a nuclear weapons program. He branded Iran part of the “axis of evil” and promoted regime change as the preferred U.S. policy. With a few limited exceptions, the United States under Bush has refused to talk directly with Iran.

McCain has been clear about his position on Iran. In February 2008, he told an audience: “I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.” He also rejects “unconditional dialogues” with Iran.

Obama has delivered messages on Iran that were more mixed. He has said “The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.” In a June 2008 speech to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, he refused to take the military option against Iran off the table: “I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.”

In the same speech, however, Obama promised: “aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests.” He has said also that it “would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran” and condemned the administration’s “saber-rattling” on Iran. Obama missed a vote on a controversial amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Lieberman that proposed labeling Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama called the amendment a repeat of the mistakes that led to war in Iraq; however, he had cosponsored an earlier bill declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS

World free of nuclear weapons: In 2007, a bipartisan group of senior and former government officials called for moving toward a “world free of nuclear weapons.” In their article by that name, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) and former Secretary of Defense William Perry urged the United States to lead an international effort to rethink traditional deterrence, reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles and take other steps toward the longer term goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

Obama has been clear in his support of their effort. In response to a Council for a Livable World questionnaire, he promised: “As president, I will take the lead to work for a world in which the roles and risks of nuclear weapons can be reduced and ultimately eliminated.”

In a May 2008 speech, McCain also endorsed the concept: “A quarter of a century ago, President Ronald Reagan declared, ‘our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.’ That is my dream, too.”

New nuclear weapons: The Bush administration has put forward proposals to build a new generation of nuclear weapons; however, these plans might be seen as conflicting with U.S. efforts to restrain other states’ nuclear ambitions. McCain has supported the proposed new nuclear weapons programs. In four key Senate votes from 2003 to 2005, McCain voted to proceed with the work on such weapons. But in his May 2008 speech, he declared: “I would cancel all further work on the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, a weapon that does not make strategic or political sense.” McCain did not express an opinion on another new nuclear weapons program, the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Obama, only in the Senate for the fourth vote, opposed the new weapons. He has not been categorical in response to the Council for a Livable World’s queries about his position on new nuclear weapons, responding that he did not support “a premature decision to produce the [Reliable Replacement Warhead].”

Nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT): One of the longest sought goals of the nuclear age has been a global ban on all nuclear test explosions as an important step to advance nuclear nonproliferation. In 1996, after 50 years of work, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed and opened for ratification. However, three years later, the Senate decisively rejected the treaty. Although the United States has not conducted a nuclear test explosion since 1992, the Bush administration has not put the treaty forward for a new vote.

McCain voted against the treaty, stating at the time: “The viability of our nuclear deterrent is too central to our national security to rush approval of a treaty that cannot be verified and that will facilitate the decline of that deterrent.” More recently, McCain has committed to continuing the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing that has existed since 1992, and promised to take “another look” at the test ban treaty. Although Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the 1999 vote, he has promised to make the test ban treaty a priority of his first term in office and pledged to work to rebuild bipartisan support for the treaty.

Nuclear non-proliferation: Efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries have faltered during the Bush administration. McCain has promised expanded proliferation efforts, increasing funding for American non-proliferation programs, strengthening international treaties and institutions to combat proliferation, increasing funding for the International Atomic Energy Administration and negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

Obama has committed to securing all vulnerable nuclear weapons materials around the world within four years of taking office: “I’ll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials during my first term in office.” He has also promised to seek a global ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and “dramatic reductions” in nuclear weapons stockpiles and a strengthened Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
MISSILE DEFENSE

In 2001, the Bush administration withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and since then has moved swiftly to deploy national missile defense interceptors in Alaska and California. The latest fiscal budget request for 2009 is $12.3 billion for all forms of missile defense.

McCain has declared that he “strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses.” His votes in the Senate back up that claim: he opposed all three amendments to cut the program in 2004. In a 2001 speech to the Munich Conference on Security Policy, he advocated abandoning the ABM Treaty.

Obama has been critical of the Bush missile defense plans: “The Bush Administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes.” Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Carl Levin in 2005 (the last major vote on missile defense) while McCain missed the vote. Obama has not indicated plans for missile defense upon assuming the presidency.

Missile defense site in Europe: McCain has also been clear in his support for a third missile defense site in Europe that is bitterly opposed by Russia. Congress cut a portion of the funding for the program in 2007 in advance of approval from the two Central European countries. In an October 2007 debate, McCain said: “I don’t care what [President Vladimir Putin’s] objections are to it.” He has also described the system as a “hedge against potential threats” from Russia and China.

Obama has been less clear what he would do with the Bush proposal, but indicated that he would not allow the program “to divide ‘new Europe’ and ‘old Europe.'” He also suggested that: “If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies, we should — but only when the system works.”
NORTH KOREA

During the last seven years, it is believed that North Korea reprocessed enough plutonium for about six to ten nuclear weapons. In 2006, North Korea became the ninth country in the world to test a nuclear weapon. In the last 12 months, negotiations among six countries — the six-party talks including the United States, North Korea, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea – produced an agreement where North Korea would disable its facility and provide a full declaration of its nuclear sites and activities. In exchange, the United States would beging the process of removing North Korea from the terrorist list, easing economic sanctions and moving toward normalization of U.S.-North Korea and Japan-North Korea relations.

After President Bush announced on June 26 that North Korea would be taken off the state-sponsored terrorism list in response to North Korea’s declaration of its nuclear program, Obama called the move “a step forward.” He went on to say: “We should continue to pursue the kind of direct and aggressive diplomacy with North Korea that can yield results. The objective must be clear: the complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs.”

McCain was a bit less effusive, calling the announcement “a modest step forward.” He added: “Our goal has been the full, permanent and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula . . . If we are unable to fully verify the declaration submitted today and if I am not satisfied with the verification mechanisms developed, I would not support the easing of sanctions on North Korea.”
OTHER ISSUES IN BRIEF

Closing Guantanamo Bay prison:Obama and McCain agree: Close the prison.

U.S.-India nuclear deal: McCain and Obama both voted for the U.S.-India nuclear deal in 2006, but Obama also voted for amendments to condition the deal on India ending military cooperation with Iran and a presidential certification that nuclear cooperation with India will not aid India in making more nuclear weapons. McCain continues to endorse the treaty “as a means of strengthening our relationship with the world’s largest democracy, and further involving India in the fight against proliferation.”

Military forces: McCain and Obama have both called for expanding the size of our active duty military forces.

Originally published in Foreign Policy in Focus on July 17, 2008  In the tit-for-tat, he-said she-said world of modern presidential campaigns, it is rare for a candidate to ask Americans to take a step back and think strategically about the national security problems facing the United States. This week, however, Barack Obama did exactly that, offering the strongest evidence yet that he is a more capable strategic thinker than John McCain.

In a wide-ranging foreign policy speech on Tuesday, Obama took a giant leap toward institutionalizing his long-running commitment to end the war in Iraq. In the key portion of his remarks, Obama said:

At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don’t have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave – General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq – victory in Iraq – will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future – a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

Obama is offering concrete objectives for the United States in Iraq, along with a realistic vision for what the endgame might look like. As he said, there is never going to be any kind of “surrender ceremony,” regardless of how often John McCain tosses around politically-charged words like “defeat” and “retreat.”

Obama went on from there to discuss his plans for winding down the war, including his willingness to “make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy” and “consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government.” This willingness to refine his policies means that Obama could actually bring most U.S. combat brigades home sooner than the 16 months he has estimated it will take, if accelerated withdrawal was determined to be an acceptable course of action.

Finally, Obama reiterated his plan to leave residual U.S. forces in Iraq in order to perform specific missions, such as targeted strikes against Al Qaeda, protecting American diplomats, and training Iraqi Security Forces. This concept of an “over-the-horizon” residual force in Iraq has been a staple of Democratic proposals for years now. Senators Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Carl Levin of Michigan have repeatedly included residual forces in their legislative proposals to end the war. Some military experts question the wisdom of a residual presence, however, because they argue that a small number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq will be attractive targets for insurgents.

Forced to respond to his rival’s major address, McCain chose to criticize Obama for articulating his Iraq strategy before his scheduled trip to the country this summer. “In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy,” McCain said. McCain apparently thinks his trip to Iraq last year – where 100 soldiers in armored Humvees redirected traffic so McCain could be escorted around a Baghdad market in a bullet-proof vest while attack helicopters circled overhead – is a realistic way to assess the facts on the ground.

In response to another question on Tuesday, McCain said, “Today we know Sen. Obama was wrong. The ‘surge’ has succeeded.” This short sentiment, which could perhaps be translated as “Mission Accomplished for The Surge,” constitutes McCain’s favorite talking point on the war. It also clearly demonstrates McCain’s ongoing conflation of military tactics with military strategy.

General David Petraeus’s tactical adjustments have enabled U.S. troops to reduce violence in targeted geographical areas of Iraq. However, limited military management will never lead to the type of World War II-style “victory” bandied about in our political discourse. Short of permanently occupying or totally destroying and rebuilding Iraq, as was the case in Germany, Japan, and South Korea – examples McCain frequently offers as models – America’s ability to construct an oasis of democracy in the Middle East at the butt of a gun is a mirage.

Political events in Iraq continue to possess an internal momentum that the United States is unable to definitively influence. Kurdish lawmakers this week walked out of the Iraqi Parliament to protest a draft provincial election law. Sunnis, who boycotted the 2005 elections, are still isolated from the decision-making process, which makes reform efforts impossible because the elected Parliament is not currently representative. American calls for the passage of key pieces of legislation have gone mostly unmet, with Iraqi lawmakers content to operate on Baghdad’s clock, not Washington’s. The referendum over the status of Kirkuk has been repeatedly postponed due to intractable differences between the contending parties’ bargaining positions.

Most ominously, the predominately Sunni sahwa movement, known as the “Sons of Iraq,” is having its integration into the regular Iraqi Security Forces delayed or ignored by the Shiite-dominated central government. This has led to frustration in the sahwas, and may soon lead members to conclude that the $300 dollars a month paid by the United States just isn’t worth it. The loss of cooperation with the sahwas – isolated, angry, and 90,000 strong – would leave a disgruntled and well-armed Sunni army in place ready to fight its Shiite enemies.

What McCain doesn’t seem to understand, but Obama clearly does, is that the United States must not allow a divided Iraqi government to determine the timetable for U.S. withdrawal. The President must do what is in the best interests of the United States and make the difficult strategic choices, not hide behind commanders like General Petraeus and defer to them on key decisions. Doing so is a subversion of civilian control of the military, a time-honored principle in American government.

The purpose of the surge, as President Bush said, was to provide breathing space for Iraqis to achieve political reconciliation. Tactical military successes under the surge are to be applauded, but political results are the ultimate objective. Lacking political progress, the United States is simply surging to nowhere.

Iraqi hearts and minds have never been with the United States, and they will never be, no matter how many troops we commit or sahwa movements we fund. Iraqis must develop an allegiance to a representative government capable of compromising to achieve political reconciliation. As long as U.S. forces remain in the country, Iraqis will remain focused on expelling the occupier, not developing allegiance to their government.

Barack Obama demonstrated this week that he is thinking several moves ahead on the chessboard in Iraq. John McCain seems content to remind us how great he is at checkers.

Travis Sharp is the Military Policy Analyst at the Council for a Livable World in Washington, D.C. and is an analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus.

July 14, 2008.   In a campaign that features back and forth on issues large and small, where Barack Obama and John McCain disagree on everything from taxes to offshore drilling to Social Security to Iraq, it is amazing how much agreement there is …

In August 2007, Council for a Livable World submitted seven critical questions on national security issues to all declared presidential candidates from both parties. At the time, that list included Sen. Joseph Biden, now the presumptive Democratic Vice…