Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Obama and Foriegn Policy: The Facts Be Damned !!!


Yesterday's speech on foreign policy by Senator Obama could best be described as troubling. I almost felt bad for the guy, he almost pulled a muscle trying to avoid saying that the surge in Iraq worked. Of course, despite his disdain for the surge in Iraq he wanted to use a similar strategy in Afghanistan. He went on to trash Pakistani President Musharraf, who despite his failings, was more willing to fight terror than those presently holding the power. In all, his speech was a mess, light on facts heavy on prose....

Barack Obama's plan ignores the facts

Michael Goodwin

Tuesday, July 15th 2008, 7:15 PM

Barack Obama and John McCain had a virtual debate on Iraq and Afghanistan Tuesday and there were two takeaways. The first is that they agree on the need for more troops in Afghanistan. The second is that Obama's vision of Iraq and how it fits into our national security is, to put it kindly, still a work in progress.

Their speeches, Obama's in Washington and McCain's in New Mexico, were carried back to back on the cable networks. It's the closest thing we're likely to get to a debate until September because Obama has rejected McCain's invitation for joint appearances.

After Tuesday, I can see why. Obama is most comfortable reading a prepared speech from a TelePrompTer, while McCain likes to roam a stage, mixing prepared remarks with a question-and-answer format. Each was in his element, but McCain was far more realistic and persuasive on the connection between Iraq and Afghanistan and the need to keep pressing forward in both. "We can succeed in both," he said.

McCain, whose appearances often have a funereal quality, has been ramping up the energy level and it showed. He was animated before an audience that appreciated his determination and earned a standing ovation when he vowed, "I will get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that."

Obama, in fairness, chose a subdued format with another purpose: to make what his team called a "major policy address" on national security. It was a choice born of necessity, with his recent contradictory remarks on Iraq and other issues creating doubts about his readiness to be commander in chief.

He was only partially successful in dispelling those doubts. While he offered a compelling view of how America should have engaged the world after 9/11 instead of invading Iraq and getting bogged down, the speech suffered from fundamental flaws in logic and fact that Obama refuses to confront.

He can't bring himself to acknowledge how the successful surge of our troops has altered the dynamics in Iraq and that he was wrong to oppose it. He went further than usual in citing "the gains of the surge," but still won't factor those gains into his commitment to withdraw combat troops over 16 months. When he says, "I stand by my pledges to end the war," he might as well add, "The facts be damned."

Meanwhile, he wants to use the surge strategy in Afghanistan, saying, "This is a war we have to win." The contrast he set up suggests he does not believe Iraq is a meaningful struggle and that we have little stake in the outcome. The number of Americans who agree with him is declining because of the success, proving they were not opposed to the war as much as they opposed losing it.

There were other head-scratchers as well. Obama talked tough about forging a new relationship with Pakistan to keep militants from crossing into Afghanistan. But in the next breath, he attacked President Pervez Musharraf, who, despite his flaws, is more committed to rooting out Taliban and Al Qaeda elements than the coalition government now calling the shots.

Obama also talked about stopping Iran's nuclear program in ways I find confusing. While he promised to "use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime," he praised European governments that have been less forceful than our own. His pressure tactics come down to meeting with Iranian leaders and threatening more sanctions, which are not likely to get through the Security Council.

And as bromides go, there was this one: "It's time to reform the United Nations, so that this imperfect institution can become a more perfect forum to share burdens, strengthen our leverage and promote our values."

That'll leave 'em laughing in Tehran, and it begs a question: Is that all there is?

Posted by at Wednesday, July 16, 2008

1 comment:

Dr. John Maszka said...

In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France. After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan. In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs.

These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt. Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today.

Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well. Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India
Over the years of America's on again off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia ... etc., etc., etc.,

Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal.

I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?

The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty.

July 19, 2008 at 8:58:00 AM EDT

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)