Letters to the Editor
-
I agree with redgti's ID of the Iraq withdrawal problem...
...but disagree with his conclusion that either McCain or Clinton would be more capable of succeeding on this point.
Part of Obama's appeal for me is precisely on the foreign policy issues and the future conduct of this war with extremist Islamic militants. Yes, it *is* a war. Yes, we *will* have to continue fighting it. And, yes, extraction from Iraq will be most difficult. I refer you all back to Powell's prescient analysis: "if we break it, we've bought it".
None of the candidates has offered a satisfactory plan for Iraq. Not Mr. 100 years, not Obama, and not Clinton. If you know of some brilliant (or even merely passable) plan for withdrawal by Clinton or McCain (your no. 2 choice), please enlighten me. I've been let down on this point by all the candidates. Including my own.
That said, I strongly favor Obama's pronouncements on foreign policy going forward, and I certainly prefer that he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. On the latter point, you may say that's easy to do so when you don't have to cast a vote, but let me remind you that he was running for a Senate seat during the most pro-War, flag-wavingist, jingoistic period in recent memory. The notion that he took no risk in opposing the Iraq War is preposterous, whether you'll allow him that or not. On the former point, I certainly agree with his foremost point that we should redouble our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where a resurgent Taliban and a reconstituted al-Qaeda grow stronger by the day. As you may recall, this was one of the many arguments against the Iraq war. Arguments that fell on deaf ears in the cases of Clinton and McCain.
And what of Clinton and McCain's criticisms of Obama as "naive" for the following pronouncement: "if we have actionable intelligence regarding al-Qaeda, and Pakistan is incapable or unwilling to act, I will do so". Following Obama's remarks, the current administration did exactly that in a directly analogous Predator missile attack on an al-Qaeda outpost in North Waziristan. We don't know if Pakistan was incapable or unwilling to attack that outpost, nor if we consulted them. But neither Clinton nor McCain criticized this action. And neither would I. But Obama is "naive" for making this policy plain?
And then there's the very slightly less analogous attack on Islamic extremists in Somalia (which doesn't really have a unified government, e.g., falling under the "incapable" prong of Obama's rules of engagement). Is this also an act that neither McCain nor Clinton would take?
Further, while it's difficult to quantify the so-called "soft power" of an Obama presidency. But I think many would agree that, more than a war of weapons, this is a war of ideas. Call me naive, but I sincerely believe that when the desperate and dispossessed in the Middle East, northern Africa, and all the -stans - those very people most likely to be radicalized by extremist Islam - awake to the swearing in as POTUS of a dusky hued individual named Barack Hussein Obama, certain received notions about our country will go flying out the window. You can call me naive if you wish, but I look to the candidates that other countries elect, and I accept that those elected candidates say something about those countries. For example, the recent Pakistani elections tell me that the electorate is sick and tired of American-supported military thugs *and* fundamentalistic Islamic parties. Had Ms. Bhutto lived to be elected, that too would tell me something about Pakistan. I think it's naive to believe that the election of Obama wouldn't have some effect.