Does it matter on Afghanistan who’s elected?
WASHINGTON — 
As President Bush makes what many think will be his last trip to Europe, some observers are warning against high hopes for change after the U.S. elections. Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh say that Americans should not expect a big change in foreign policy regardless of who’s elected. They argue that the candidates all agree with President Bush on the broad outlines of the challenges facing the U.S., disagreeing only on tactics. Similarly, the French scholar Dominique Moisi has observed that “the next president’s room for maneuver will be very small.” Yet, if you look at Afghanistan — the issue in this week’s debate tracker on the GMF elections website – I’m not sure the “no change” view holds.
Certainly we should expect that Democratic and Republican candidates alike will ask Europe to do more in Afghanistan: Obama has called for Germany to lift the ban on combat operations and John McCain has called for NATO members to remove their national caveats. Yet, there are also differences, most importantly in the priority the candidates give to Afghanistan. Barack Obama has called for a redeployment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan, saying Iraq has distracted from the battle against Al Qaeda, while John McCain disagrees, arguing that the continued troop presence in Iraq is essential for stability in the region. Europeans were cautious about their ability to do more at this year’s NATO summit in Bucharest, but it is widely thought that it will be harder to say no to a new American president than to President George W. Bush. Doing more may not mean more troops, as I’ve heard it suggested that more help on reconstruction would be even more useful than additional European troops. But it makes you wonder, if we’re not careful, is there a risk of a transatlantic clash of expectations?