That is until now. When the US State Department expressed public “concerns” about the military junta’s crackdown on “pro-democracy” NGOs that receive US funding, the Livingston Group — a recipient of some of the $90,000+ monthly Egyptian lobbying funds — went into action.

The lobbyists have defended the raids against the NGOs, arguing that some of them were never licensed by the former Mubarak regime and that they were technically “operating outside Egyptian law.” They have also forwarded a set of “talking points,” including that the NGOs should not be allowed to “operate outside the law.”

The move has spawned a retaliatory round of condemnations from some politicians, notably Sen. John McCain (R – AZ), who is chairman of the board of directors of one of the NGOs. McCain demanded that the lobbyists stop, saying they “conflict with US national interests” and “undermine American values.” The Livingston Group is run by former House Appropriations Committee head Bob Livingston (R – LA).

The raids and the Livingston lobbying clearly reflect the interest of the current military junta, while McCain’s condemnations are a function of his own NGO’s ambitions in the country. Ironically both the junta and the NGO are heavily on the take from the US government, and more than a serious ideological split, their respective positions represent efforts to keep their respective gravy trains running.

The two took turns in an interview on CNN praising President Obama for his hawkish stand on Afghanistan and predicting imminent victory (with Senator Lieberman citing the growing al-Qaeda presence in Yemen as proof that Afghanistan was going well), while chastizing the president for not taking even more hawkish positions in general.

In Pakistan, the two praised the ongoing drone strikes in Waziristan and condemning the civilian government for negative comments toward the drone escalation. At the same time, the two met separately with Pakistan’s military chief and said that they believe the Pakistani Army will soon invade North Waziristan, something the civilian government has bristled at with the army already committed to so many unpopular wars on America’s behalf.

They also lashed out at US special envoy George Mitchell for making comments about Israel’s loan guarantees, insisting that Congress would never tolerate any move to revoke any aid to the nation.

Sen. McCain also slammed Obama for not handing over the failed Christmas lap bomber to the military, even though he had never been to a US warzone and didn’t try to attack a military target. McCain insisted the man should not have access to a lawyer.

Sen. Lieberman, for his part, predicted that the Iranian government would soon collapse, and called on President Obama to throw even more support behind the opposition protests.

Sen. McCain (R-AZ) has become one of the most outspoken advocates of the McChrystal Plan, which calls for an absolute minimum of 40,000 additional troops but potentially over 60,000 more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. McCain says that anything short of accepting the general’s call “would be an error of historic proportions.”

Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) likewise said it made no sense for President Obama to put General McChrystal in charge of the war “and not take those recommendations,” cautioning that the war’s failure could imperil neighboring Pakistan.

Others, including Sen. Levin (D-MI) and Rep. McGovern (D-MA) have spoken out in support of an alternative strategy of trying to make the already unwieldy Afghan military dramatically larger.

Though President Obama made the escalation of the war in Afghanistan the centerpiece of his foreign policy, just nine months after taking office the war’s growing unpopularity and Gen. McChrystal’s aggressive demands have left the president stalling for time.

Coming just a day after he co-wrote a piece touting the continued escalation of the war, Senator John McCain cheered Admiral Mullen’s comments, saying every day the US doesn’t further escalate the eight year long conflict “puts lives in danger.”

Yet other senators, notably Carl Levin, pressed the admiral on the wisdom of adding to the US combat force. Sen. Levin has advocated keeping troop levels roughly flat and adding to the “civilian surge” aimed at training the large but largely ineffective Afghan military.

Gen. McChrystal’s official troop request is expected in the next few weeks, but it has already been reported that he will request around 20,000 additionaltroops for the conflict. Though the war is increasingly unpopular, it is widely expected that President Obama will endorse the troop request.

During last year’s campaign, McCain attacked Obama’s escalation strategy as “naive” and “premature,” and advocated a policy of increased US control over the international forces and civilian aid, while expressing concern that President Obama’s strategy would mean failure in Iraq.

Of course, President Obama’s Iraq strategy has morphed dramatically since the campaign, when he promised to pull all troops out within 16 months. At this point, his policy of maintaining troop levels seems very similar to the plan he attacked Sen. McCain for at the time.

So the 2008 election season has come full circle, and the most hawkish position on Iraq and the most hawkish position on Afghanistan are now official policy, and Senator McCain hopes that further escalation will lead to “significantly more success” in Afghanistan. Considering the disastrous state of the war and its worsening situation by the month, it seems hard to imagine that both major party candidates have reached the identical failed position, but that is indeed the case.

Yet Qureshi’s Indian counterpart, Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, denied that India had made any moves to mobilize its forces along the Pakistani border. “We have not created any tension,” Mukherjee insisted, adding that “there is no question of mobilization or escalation of tension” between the two sides.

Yet Senator John McCain was also quoted yesterday as saying “the Indians are on the verge of some kind of attack on Pakistan,” and warning that “we’re going to be in for a very difficult time there.” The Indian government has repeatedly insisted that any concerns about war are being deliberately fomented by the Pakistani government for its own gain, but as troops remain on alert on both sides of the border it seems a situation worth continuing to watch.

In Iraq

Senators McCain and Obama ran virtually opposite campaigns on Iraq during the primary season, with Sen. McCain calling for an open-ended military commitment and Sen. Obama calling for a more or less immediate withdrawal.

As the primaries turned into the general election season however, both candidates met somewhere in the middle, with Sen. Obama’s withdrawal now predicated on the recommendations of military commanders, and Sen. McCain speaking openly of the possibility of most US troops being home by 2012. In the end, neither candidate seems likely to make immediate changes after inauguration anymore, rather following the Bush policy and reacting to the changing situation on the ground.

In Afghanistan

Both candidates have called for an increase in the number of US troops in Afghanistan, and Senator Obama’s position on the reduction of troops in Iraq has gone from opposition to a failed war to shifting excess forces from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Beyond that, both candidates sent aides to a secret briefing by the Bush Administration on the situation in Afghanistan in mid October. The differences between the two seem again, minimal, though Sen. Obama sees Afghanistan as the center of America’s war on terror, as opposed to just one of many fronts, making him perhaps more inclined to increase the number of troops on the ground faster.

In Pakistan

Sen. Obama has been seen as the more hawkish of the two on the question of launching unilateral attacks into Pakistan, with Sen. McCain criticizing his position during one of the presidential debates. Pakistan’s government is expected to lean hard on either candidate to halt the strikes, though neither candidate has done anything to suggest they would be liable to halt them.

Sen. Obama has also linked the situation in Pakistan’s border territories to the growing separatist protests in Indian Kashmir, drawing angry protests from India’s opposition while its government called it “re-election rhetoric.”

In Iran

Both candidates have left open the possibility of attacking Iran, though Senator McCain’s impromptu “bomb bomb bomb Iran” song during the campaign has left the impression that he is somewhat more eager to do so. His running mate Gov. Palin has accused Iran of plotting a new Holocaust as well.

Sen. Obama seems willing to talk with Iran, though not without pre-conditions. He has also called for the United States to prevent Iran from importing gasoline as a way to put “the squeeze on them.” Both candidates have also called for tighter sanctions.

What the Rest of the World Says

While much of Western Europe seems to be eager for an Obama presidency, and the end of the Bush Administration’s “arrogant” policies, US absentee voters in Israel overwhelmingly backed Senator McCain, largely for his more hawkish perception on Iran. In Iraq, the populace seems pretty well split down the middle between the two candidates.

Some Iraqis hope that Sen. Obama will win and fulfill his promise to pull troops out of the country, while many in Iraqi Kurdistan fear Obama would jeopardize their growing influence in the nation and hope that Sen. McCain will win and keep the troops there.

For many others however, the choice itself makes little difference and its effect on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the United States is the most pressing issue.  Campaign rhetoric aside, they believe that neither candidate is likely to withdraw forces from the country, and that “it is the institutions, not the individuals, that decide US long-term policies.”

The Bush Administration is expected to reply to the proposed SOFA amendments submitted by the Iraqi government sometime after Tuesday’s election. But the Washington Times quotes anonymous officials saying the administration will not react favorably to the proposals, that the Iraqis are “asking for things that no US president can agree to,” and that the US is looking into asking the United Nations Security Council to extend its mandate beyond the December 31 deadline.

But whatever the details of the meeting, the overall tone could hardly be anything but pessimistic. With a resurgent Taliban, an increasingly disillusioned population, British officials talking about the need to prop up an “acceptable dictator” and America’s own National Intelligence Estimate declaring the situation in a “downward spiral,” there are few sources of positive viewpoints on the war seven year after its beginning: Gen. McKiernan’s belief that the pessimism stems from an unfair media notwithstanding.

The main clue to the content is a comment by an anonymous official who participated, and said “if the new administration spends three months trying to figure out what to do, it’s too late.” Admiral Mullen has predicted the situation will be even worse next year, while Gen. McKiernan believes that more troops are needed “as quickly as possible.”

So far, the administration’s “new” strategy has been to escalate the war on the nation’s drug trade and to launch an increasing number of unilateral attacks into neighboring Pakistan, while both candidates seem at a loss what to do besides throwing more troops at the problem.

There has been some suggestion that the US would participate in peace talks with the Taliban, but the US has since ruled out including the most significant Taliban figures and will reportedly not consider the only thing the Taliban appears to seek: the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, making it unclear what those talks could possibly accomplish.

On Pakistan

Sen. Obama attributed the “difficult situation” in Pakistan and Afghanistan to the decision to invade Iraq. He says Osama bin Laden has set up bases in “north-west Pakistan,” which he declared the central front of the war. He vowed to “crush al-Qaeda” and kill bin Laden, and said he would not “coddle” the Pakistani government as past administrations have. Sen. Obama also said he would insist the Pakistani government go after militants, and would target bin Laden if the Pakistani government refused to do so.

Sen. McCain criticized his opponent for announcing his intention to launch attacks into Pakistan, which he blamed for damaging Pakistani public opinion about the US. He also promised to get Pakistan to “go into Waziristan,” but said of the question of attacks he would “talk softly and carry a big stick.” Elaborating on that, Sen. McCain assured he also had a plan to get bin Laden, but that he wouldn’t “telegraph my punches.”

Sen. Obama denied that he called for an invasion of Pakistan, and insisted that faltering Pakistani public opinion was due to US support for the dictatorship of former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

On Afghanistan

Sen. Obama promised to “put more pressure on the Afghan government,” saying he would tell Afghan President Hamid Karzai he is going to have to do better for the Afghan people. His primary change in Afghanistan would be to demand Iraq take more responsibility for its security so he could shift more troops to the Afghan front.

Sen. McCain, by contrast, said the big foreign policy mistake was in ignoring Afghanistan after the mujahideen (whom the Senator termed “Afghan freedom fighters”) successfully drove the Soviet Union from the nation. His strategy was very straightforward, just letting General David Petraeus set the tone for the war and having him engage in the “same overall strategy” as the surge in Iraq, which he said would lead to “honor and victory.” He also said he would seek to “streamline” the NATO command structure.

On Russia

Sen. McCain said Russia might be the same old “Evil Empire” they were during the Soviet era, He also assured that there would be no new Cold War, while warning that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was plotting against Ukraine in an attempt to “reassemble the old Soviet Union.” He said the US should provide “moral support” to Georgia and Ukraine and penalize Russia for its actions.

Sen. Obama went a step further, saying the moral support should also come with “concrete financial support.” He accused Prime Minister Putin of engaging in “evil behavior,” and cautioned that Russia has “dangerous nationalist impulses.” His said that seeking energy independence would be a good way to “weaken Russia.”

On Iran

Sen. Obama mentioned Sen. McCain’s previous “bomb bomb bomb Iran” song, though Sen. McCain insisted he was just “joking with an old veteran” in making this comment.

Sen. McCain accused Iran of being engaged in a “quest” to acquire nuclear weapons, and said that if Iran ever acquires a nuclear arsenal everyone else in the Middle East would acquire them as well. He chided Sen. Obama for supporting talks without preconditions with Iran, and called for significant new sanctions against Iran. He also called for a “League of Democracies” to crack down on Iran, and insisted “we can never allow a second Holocaust.”

Sen. Obama said that though he supports talks, he would never take the option of attacking Iran off the table, and would not allow the United Nations to “veto” an American attack. He also said Iran should be barred from importing gasoline as a way of putting “the squeeze on them.” He also accused Iran of having “4,000 centrifuges to develop nuclear weapons” and called for tighter sanctions.