Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Pakistan
Obama said that no one is advocating invading Pakistan and then he turns around in the next breath and advocates just that (if they are not going to go after bin Laden...which they have not done). Obama plays really loose with the facts. Will he be held accountable? Probably not.
# posted by 99 Blogger @ 9:44 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Obama's been trapped by this one before. Of course he has to sound hardcore, lest he not be deemed commander-in-chief enough. He also has to deride McCain's "gates of hell" line, so he can't sound weak on UBL or Qaeda. However, McCain has an excellent point that a head of state does not openly announce to the world that he will cheerfully violate the sovereignty of an ally.
Obama's best counter would be to turn the question on its head; instead argue that as a stateless entity (ie no longer state-supported), al Qaeda resembles the pirates of yore (and not the Johnny Depp types--think Homer's natural outcast), and thus are an extrinsic threat to society and civilization everywhere.
Thus it doesn't matter where we find members of al Qaeda; Americans will capture or kill these barbarians who threaten civilization.
Unfortunately, there are 2 additional problems:
1) That's W's line "capture or kill the terrorists," and roughly McCain's line "follow UBL to the gates of hell..." so Obama has been attempting to differentiate himself. However, on the many issues where Bush lacks credibility, the War on Terror is not one of them. Despite American distaste for the state of the Iraq War in 2004, the War on Terror was the deciding factor in Bush's reelection. Obama doesn't need to distinguish himself in this regard, simply state that he's just as hardcore as McCain and Bush to follow al Qaeda wherever it might be found, and leave it at that.
2) Foreign policy types are not especially adept at presenting policies that turn into election-winning soundbytes. Obama needs some better FP schooling.
Oh, and Tony Lake. Why? Can anyone say Black Hawk Down?
Obama's best counter would be to turn the question on its head; instead argue that as a stateless entity (ie no longer state-supported), al Qaeda resembles the pirates of yore (and not the Johnny Depp types--think Homer's natural outcast), and thus are an extrinsic threat to society and civilization everywhere.
Thus it doesn't matter where we find members of al Qaeda; Americans will capture or kill these barbarians who threaten civilization.
Unfortunately, there are 2 additional problems:
1) That's W's line "capture or kill the terrorists," and roughly McCain's line "follow UBL to the gates of hell..." so Obama has been attempting to differentiate himself. However, on the many issues where Bush lacks credibility, the War on Terror is not one of them. Despite American distaste for the state of the Iraq War in 2004, the War on Terror was the deciding factor in Bush's reelection. Obama doesn't need to distinguish himself in this regard, simply state that he's just as hardcore as McCain and Bush to follow al Qaeda wherever it might be found, and leave it at that.
2) Foreign policy types are not especially adept at presenting policies that turn into election-winning soundbytes. Obama needs some better FP schooling.
Oh, and Tony Lake. Why? Can anyone say Black Hawk Down?
Sarah Palin's and Charlie Gibson's misunderstanding of the "Bush Doctrine" notwithstanding, no one in this campaign has addressed the central foreign policy quandry brought about by 9/11...how do we prevent another one? McCain and Obama are still preoccupied with reactionary revenge...the hunt for bin Laden. It will not be bin Laden who plots the next assault against American citizens. That's what I'm worried about.
Post a Comment
<< Home
