By Sam Black, CDI Research Assistant

With the first of the Republican and Democratic primary elections about a year away, defense and foreign policy issues have already taken center stage in the battle for electoral supremacy.  While Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly the central issues, the coming year could be a crucial one for missile defense as well.  As in the past election, contenders will likely be expected to take a stance on the issue.  The following is a look at what the top two Democratic and Republican contenders have said and done about missile defense in the past. 

A Zogby America poll conducted between March 22 and 26 shows Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in the lead for the Democratic nomination with a 10-percent point-cushion over Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.[i]  The leader in the Republican race is former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has a 14-point lead over Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also according to Zogby America.[ii]  Other candidates in both parties trail significantly, although it should be noted that a significant minority of potential voters, about one-fourth, were unsure about who they preferred. 

Clinton

Clinton’s stance toward missile defense is the most ambiguous of the four candidates.  She criticized President George W. Bush’s decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and has at various times voted for and against funding for the missile defense program.[iii]  During her 2000 campaign for Senate, she said that she supported financing research on the system, but did not explicitly endorse its deployment.[iv]  More recently, according to the Republican National Committee’s website, she has voted against missile defense four times, all on amendments related to S.2400, the fiscal year 2005 (FY 05) Department of Defense authorization of appropriations.[v]  In the last of these, she voted for an amendment which would have transferred $50 million dollars from missile defense to nuclear non-proliferation programs.  On the other hand, a recent New York Times article discussed several recent attempts Clinton has made to engage the military.  It suggested that these may be an early effort to stave off one criticism aimed at her husband during his candidacy – that he had little knowledge of or involvement with the military.[vi]  If this is indeed the case, Clinton may voice more support for missile defense in her campaign than one might expect, given her voting record.

Obama

Obama, having just recently entered the national stage, has very little on the public record on defense issues.  Military issues fell outside the purview of the Illinois State Legislature, of which he was a member prior to his election to the U.S. Senate.  However, there is some indication that he supports at least one specific program – Israel’s Arrow defense system.  The Arrow is a mobile, short-range system which employs both American and Israeli components and was funded by both governments.  Speaking to Haaretz, a prominent Israeli newspaper, on Feb. 15, 2007, Obama said, “We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.”[vii]  Whether or not Obama might support U.S. systems during the campaign is unclear, though he too voted for the transfer of funds away from missile defense in 2005.[viii]  No equivalent measure was offered in 2006.  Given this relatively ambiguous stance, Obama still has a good deal of room to maneuver on the issue, and can be expected to do so as other candidates firm up their positions.

Giuliani

Like Obama, Giuliani has little experience in positions that require stances on military issues.  And – unlike the other three candidates covered here – he has no voting record on missile defense, so there is no firm evidence of his support for the system.  While he has commented occasionally on the issue, these remarks are few and far between.  Giuliani attended a campaign event for David McSweeney, an Illinois Republican who ran for a seat in the House of Representatives in 2006.  At the event, McSweeney said he was a “strong supporter” of the missile defense system.  Giuliani agreed with the candidate.[ix]  Other than this limited information, there is little indication on how vigorously Giuliani would pursue missile defense if elected president.  It seems likely that this stance will be clarified as his campaign matures.

McCain

One of the reasons Giuliani may have to clarify his stance on missile defense is that McCain, who at present is his most serious challenger, has advocated for the construction of the system for several years.  McCain’s official presidential campaign website features a section devoted to missile defense, which opens by saying that “John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses.”[x]  In his 2000 presidential campaign, both he and his opponent, then Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, supported withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.  At the present time, it appears that McCain, if elected, would pursue missile defense more vigorously than any of the other three contenders discussed here.

All three senators will have an opportunity to vote on missile defense this year when the FY 08 defense budget reaches the head of the agenda.  While there is no way of predicting whether or not there will be a specific vote on funding for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) as there was in 2005, such a vote would do much to clarify the senators’ positions on the issue.  In certain circumstances, even a direct vote on MDA funding might not be an accurate gauge of support for missile defense.  Developments in Iran or North Korea could significantly alter the public perception of the threat posed by either country.  Should further missile tests occur, voting against missile defense might become politically impossible, despite the personal views of any particular senator.  However, with a close eye on the context for missile defense, the remainder of 2007 could well resolve the ambiguities noted here.