Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Democrat presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama was obviously stung by the reaction characterizing him as `naive' and a light weight for his remarks on the You Tube debate on his readiness to negotiate immediately with countries like Iran and Syria.
He recently made a speech entitled `The War We Need To Win at the Wilson Center in Washington DC in an obvious attempt to reassert himself on foreign policy.
While a number of his assertions are factually incorrect and merely repeat the usual talking points, it's worth looking at what he proposes for the future, as it casts a certain amount of light on his thinking....or lack of it.
In brief Obama feels that Iraq is a mistake and we should leave as soon as possible to concentrate on `fighting al-Qaeda' in Pakistan and Afghanistan...even invading Pakistan if necessary. He also likes the idea of negotiating immediately with Iran and Syria...with no mention of what he might offer them that's any different then what's already been tried.
Again, like many Democrats, Obama seems to not understand that Osama bin-Laden himself declared Iraq a central front on the jihad against the West and he and the nation states that support jihad have committed enormous resources and prestige to driving the US out. If `fighting al-Qaeda' is what Obama wants, whom does he think our troops are dealing with on the ground in Iraq? The Boy Scouts?
Senator Obama mentioned, as a rationale that Iraq is merely a civil war that we should have no stake in, that much of the violence in Iraq is not being committed by al-Qaeda anyway..but he also omitted to mention, perhaps deliberately, that our troops have also been taking out the Shiite death squads and the Iranian `secret cells' attached to the Mahdi Army.
Perhaps the senator figures that once we're out of the picture, the al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq will just magically disappear into the desert sands.It's nice to know that he still believes in geniis and Alladin's lamp.
Another factor the senator seems to not be figuring on is what might happen to the people of Iraq after we leave. Near the end of his remarks,he uses some lachrymose symbolism and mentions that the America he knows `is the last, best hope for that child looking up at a helicopter.'
Curious that he would be uncaring about the Iraqi kids who might be abandoned to their fate while watching that last American helicopter leave Baghdad.
Next, let's look at the Barak Hussein Obama plan for Pakistan. He wants to condition aid to the Musharaf regime on recognizable progress against the Taliban and al Qaeda...a good idea, but one that Congress passed into law already.
If nothing happens on the Pakistani side, the senator talks about sending two brigades into Pakistan to take out our enemies, and asking the Europeans for troops to go in with us in support of this invasion.
Lessee...that would be about 6,000 men in an area only a little smaller than Texas, with some of the highest mountains and the ruggedest terrain on earth, to fight against a country armed with tactical nukes and fanatical tribal crosscurrents that make Iraq look straightfoward by comparison.
When I e-mailed my pal Captain Jimmy, late of the 10th Mountain and now stateside in recovery mode, he suggested that anyone planning on sending a mere two brigades into Waziristan and the adjoining areas of Afghanistan seek psychiatric help, and quickly. His thumbnail estimate for doing the job called for around 150,000+ troops and support units, minimum.
And I must admit, I'm curious about which European powers Obama is planning on hitting up. Britain? They're already pulling out of Iraq, and all they need is to invade Pakistan and rile up their own crazed jihadis at home. France? Germany? Italy? They've already declined to get involved in Iraq or Afghanistan, except in non-combatant roles. Who's left? Andorra? Belgium? Luxembourg? Maybe some of the Swiss guards from the Vatican?
And of course, there's also Obama's party. Can you imagine the screams, the posturing, the demonstrations and the insanity that would ensue on a `new Iraq'? Obama's own party would have to oppose him, or look like the worst hypocrites on the face of the earth.
He does, however, get one thing right. It's impossible to decisively win a war when the enemy has a safe haven right next door. Unfortunately,Obama fails to apply that insight to Iraq, with its own safe havens of Iran and Syria. He's not talking about invading them...he wants to talk to them, to `negotiate' even though the Bush Administration and the UN have been attempting exactly that for quite some time!
A far better way of dealing with an intransigent Pakistan as a last resort would be a punitive strike on its nuclear facilities and infrastructure, along with a blockade of its ports. And as I said before, my own favorite mission in Pakistan would be a snatch of Dr. AQ Kahn, followed by a nice, cozy interrogation to find exactly what he gave to Iran and others.
Another thing Obama also conspicuously fails to mention is one of the other havens of terrorism - Saudi Arabia, where the majority of al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq are recruited.
And another curious ommission is a lack of concern for securing our borders, or dealing with the Saudi funded mosques and madrassahs that are playing a major role in radicalizing America's Muslims.
I wonder if the senator's often expressed admiration for fundamentalist Islam as opposed to his disdain for the so-called `Christian Right' or his support from many of the members of Islamist groups like CAIR,the MPAC and others of that ilk have anything to do with that? Perhaps not, but it's worth asking the question.
In short, Senator Obama's foreign policy views are pretty good evidence that he is either blowing smoke in an attempt to appear presidential or an admission that he really doesn't know anything about using the military or the international situation.
Someone like Senator Obama as commander-in-chief could end up being dangerous in ways even beyond what's revealed here. I can appreciate the Senator's charisma and his appeal to those who dislike Senator Clinton, but picking a president in wartime has very little in common with American Idol.