The president makes the decisions, but who advises the president? We know Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle insisted that American forces would be treated as liberators in Iraq. McCain has surrounded himself with people likely to encourage him to follow a similar disastrous path if he becomes president. But what about Obama and Clinton?

A major difference stands out among those they are likely to appoint to key posts in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs: almost everyone in Senator Obama's foreign policy team opposed the US invasion. By contrast, most of Senator Clinton's foreign policy team, largely comprising veterans of her husband's administration, strongly supported George W. Bush's call for a US invasion of Iraq.

It should come as no surprise that during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Obama spoke at a Chicago anti-war rally while Clinton went as far as falsely claiming Iraq was actively supporting al-Qaeda. And during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.

Clinton's advisors are similarly confident in the US' ability to impose its will through force. This is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O'Hanlon. Clinton's top foreign policy advisor--and her likely pick for Secretary of State--Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained "a clear and present danger at all times." He rejected the broad international legal consensus against such offensive wars, and insisted European governments and anti-war demonstrators opposing a US invasion "undoubtedly encouraged" Saddam Hussein.

Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband's national security advisor, was adamant that "even a contained Saddam" was "harmful to stability and to positive change in the region" and insisted on the necessity of "regime change." Other top Clinton advisors--such as former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright--confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a US takeover of Iraq.

By contrast, during the lead-up to the war, Obama's advisors recognized the highly suspect claims made by the Bush administration regarding Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" and offensive delivery systems capable of threatening US national security. Now advising Obama, former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, argued that public support for war "should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy." Brzezinski seems to have learned from mistakes like arming the Mujahideen. He warned that invading a country of no threat to the US would threaten America's global leadership since most of the international community would view it as an illegitimate act of aggression.

Another key Obama advisor, the Carnegie Endowment's Joseph Cirincione, argued that the goal of containing potential Iraqi threats had been achieved as a result of sanctions, the return of inspectors, and the deterrent of having a multinational force stationed in the region. Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors--such as Susan Rice, Larry Korb, Samantha Power, and Richard Clarke--raised concerns about the human and material costs of invading and occupying a large Middle Eastern country, and the risks of American forces becoming embroiled in post-invasion chaos and a lengthy counter-insurgency war.

These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposing views in the lead-up to the war: Clinton voted to let President Bush invade the oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his choosing, while Obama was speaking out to oppose a US invasion.

Hillary Clinton has a few advisors who opposed the war, like Wesley Clark, but taken together, the kinds of key people she's surrounded herself with supports the likelihood that her administration, like Bush's, would embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, ignore international law and the advice of allies, and launch offensive wars. By contrast, as The Nation noted, a Barack Obama administration would more likely examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, work more closely with America's allies to maintain peace and security, respect our country's international legal obligations, and use military force only as a last resort.

In terms of Iran, for instance, Cirincione has downplayed the supposed threat, while Clinton advisor Holbrooke insists that "the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States," the country is "the most pressing problem-nation," and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler. This is consistent with Clinton's vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which opened the door to a potential Bush attack on Iran, and with Obama's opposition to it.

Given the problems exemplified by the current administration's tragic legacy, primary voters should recognize Obama's promise of change is the most prudent course in these dangerous times. --Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco