Candidate Richardson

Governor Bill Richardson has, for obvious reasons, emphasized his foreign policy experience in his presidential campaign. As former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (1997-1998), he has a familiarity with that body in particular and international diplomacy in general.
He wrote in July 2007 of the need for a "grand strategy" to fight and ultimately defeat Al Qaeda specifically and, more generally, what he terms jihadism: "A critical first step is to enhance our commitment -- military, political and economic -- to Afghanistan. To defeat the resurgent Taliban will require a significant increase in NATO forces along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border-- and that will require American leadership."
Interestingly, as a former UN ambassador, while one would think he'd understandably embrace a multilateral diplomatic approach to world affairs, calling for a "significant increase" in NATO forces in Afghanistan runs counter to the reluctance (to be polite) of NATO members to continue that fight at all, never mind actually increasing their military presence there.
At the most recent Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Richardson responded to CNN's Wolf Blitzer's "clever" question (essentially, are human rights more important than national security) by arguing that "[in] Pakistan . . . Islamic parties get maybe 15 percent of the vote . . . so this threat that, oh, revolutionary elements are going to overtake him, if he has a fair election . . . " is nonsense. He didn't add that the vast majority of moderate Pakistanis have had their aspirations consistently thwarted by the Bush Administration's refusal to force Musharraf to reinstate the Constitution, allow free elections, and step down from power.
As part of his overarching "grand strategy," Richardson also calls for a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan, citing the border areas of Waziristan as "poverty-stricken breeding grounds for Jihadism."
Richardson has articulated a multilateral, primarily soft-power message for fighting extremism in the Islamic world. What remains to be seen is how willing America's allies would be to sign on to this approach in any meaningful way. The Clinton Administration's Southwest Asian diplomatic strategy didn't bear much fruit given that Pakistan and India detonated their first nuclear weapons on Bill Clinton's watch. Perhaps, as has been argued, the Clinton Administration's approach to foreign policy was one of benign neglect, but Richardson seems to understand the obvious need for the sort of direct foreign policy engagement largely eschewed by his former boss.
In a speech at the Center for National Policy, Richardson spoke at length regarding a way forward with Iran. Significantly, he stressed the need for direct negotiations with the Iranians without preconditions. "Talking without preconditions does not mean backing off one inch over fundamental objectives, such as insuring that Iran never acquires nuclear weapons," he said.
He also made an important distinction between undermining the Iranian government by funding emigre groups who'd like to overthrow the regime, and initiating contacts within Iran "with moderate and pragmatic elements in both the Iranian political class and in the broader society, including business people and students who have supported moderate politicians in the past, and may do so again in the future."
Now, if the other candidates of both parties were to take such a reasoned approach, we might find ourselves better situated over time within the region.