Sun Blogs
Obama's Foreign Policy Blunder
Email: 
Share: 
The Politics Factory
August 10, 2007 - 12:34am
Despite his rising status as the rockstar of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama has proven that no amount of popularity can match the experience and knowledge required to master the complexities of foreign policy. Obama threatened to unilaterally bomb Pakistan if actionable intelligence placed high-level al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and President Musharraf would not act. While this threat became a good applause line, Musharraf, a U.S. ally who faces a tough situation in Pakistan, did not take so kindly to Obama's words, and he certainly was not alone. Obama's statement, combined with his willingness at the same time to meet with crazy dictators like Chavez and Ahmadinejaid, provoked much criticism from Hillary Clinton on Obama's naive statement, and Mitt Romney weighed in as well with the best one-liner of Sunday's Republican debate: "In one week, he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies. I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week." In the Democratic debate that shortly followed, both Hillary Clinton and veteran Senator and foreign policy expert Chris Dodd double-teamed Obama for his reckless decree. At the very least, Obama's public declaration of hostility towards Pakistan does not qualify as "common sense."
Dodd and Clinton take on Obama
No one disagrees that United States needs to pressure Pakistan to take a more active role fighting al-Qaeda in their country. Dodd and Clinton, however, understand the consequences of exerting too much pressure. As always, the United States reserves the right to take whatever actions are necessary to protect itself, but we should quietly maintain this authority and think twice about publicizing this option for a specific situation involving a specific nation. By doing this, Obama has already helped turn Pakistan against us, and he has not even stepped foot in the White House much less won the Democratic nomination. A leading English Pakistani newspaper, DAWN, reports that the Pakistani lawmakers—from both the ruling and opposition parties—have heavily criticized the current state of relations with America, citing both Obama's unilateral threat and also legislation he promotes tying aid to Pakistan with their performance against terrorists. And who could blame them? Tying aid to Pakistan's performance in fighting terrorism, much less a threat to bomb a nation, does not say much about how the U.S. values their friendship with Pakistan or appreciates the support they have already given.
One cannot underestimate the difficulties that face Musharraf as leader of Pakistan. Al-Jazeera recently reported on how he met with exiled opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. Now think about this. Do you think Musharraf suddenly had a miraculous change of heart? Or is he running low on support and allies in Pakistan? In fact, the BBC indicates that Musharraf briefly considered declaring a state of emergency due to the volatile political and security situation in his country. Part of it may also relate to a recent raid of a radical Islamic mosque in Pakistan which, albeit controversial, certainly shows his commitment to fighting terrorism. Hopefully it will not provoke a fourth assassination attempt on Musharraf. Somehow, I could not imagine how Obama's comments would help ease the tension or value the work Musharraf has already done and continues to do. Obama needs to understand that his statements affect more than polling numbers.
Furthermore, even if Obama does follow up on his words and executes a successful strike, we still have to worry about what happens next. Well, if it destabilizes Pakistan enough so that radicals can oust Musharraf and take over the country, essentially we have a rogue nation armed with nuclear weapons, a possibility which Clinton wisely pointed out. If that happens, Obama would have to refocus his efforts from Iraq to the real front in the war on terror as he says, but not exactly in the way that he imagined. Furthermore, although everyone wants us to get bin Laden, realistically, how much will it help us in the grand scheme of things? Capturing Saddam Hussein and killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leading al-Qaeda member in Iraq, did wonders for us there. It essentially put an end to both the insurgency and the terrorists, Democrats praised the turnaround that followed, and Bush's approval ratings soared--wait, none of that happened.
Osama bin Laden may be an important person in the war on terror, but he's ultimately just that, another person. Successors will always exist, and Al-Qaeda will move on after his capture or death. Ultimately, if the U.S. does not do more to support moderate Muslim people and governments in the Middle East, al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups will continue to attract followers and sway those on the borderline between anger and extremism. Bombing a sovereign Muslim nation which, in spite of its problems, has provided a lot of support to the United States, would only marginalize the influence of moderate Muslims in the Middle East and encourage more people to join Islamic terrorist groups.
Beyond the targeted lines and applause Obama generated confronting Dodd and Clinton, he clearly has lost focus of the big picture in terms of both foreign policy and his battle with Hillary, who has recently gained on Obama in part due to their foreign policy scuffle preceding this debate. Obama has managed to generate bipartisan opposition to his talk on Pakistan, and that constitutes quite the accomplishment, because when someone says "bipartisan opposition," usually people have another politician in mind. While Hillary Clinton has developed a not-so-stellar reputation among Republicans, if in a future debate she delivers an excoriating rebuke to Obama for his conduct concerning the deeply troubling situation in Pakistan, this Republican may have to stand up, clap, and say, "Speak the truth, Hillary!"
Mike Wacker is a blogger and an Assistant Web Editor at The Sun. He can be contacted at mwacker@cornellsun.com.
You have it all wrong: If we
You have it all wrong: If we know where bin Laden or Al Qaida leadership is and that country harbors terrorists we should crush them.
Since when is Musharraf a nice ally? He's a dictator in a country that's democratic enough to have had a female president. Your idea that Musharraf is keeping the radicals at bay is a complete fabrication.
On the other hand Ahmadinejad, Castro, Chavez and Assad, pale in comparison to Stalin and Khrushchev who US presidents met with in the past.
Obama has it right.
"Osama bin Laden may be an
"Osama bin Laden may be an important person in the war on terror, but he's ultimately just that, another person."
That so precisely represents the Republican foreign policy: ignore Bin Laden as "just another person" and the Taliban as "just another group."
Instead, we've invaded a country with no ties to either Bin Laden or the Taliban, armed the Sunnis and the Shiites in a war against us and each other, and created enough blowback to motivate an entire next generation of suicide bombers.
And we're giving the culprits behind 9/11 a 'get out of jail free.' Way to go.
Speak the truth?
LOL. Was this satire? Are you serious? Hillary Clinton speak the truth?
Where should I begin? First this ridiculous notion that Pakistan will be destablized, because of our action to go after Al Queda in a region that only a fool would claim falls under Pakistan control or sovereignty is rubbish. Musharraf was willing to raid the Islamists in the Red Mosque because of China's demand for retribution. The Red Mosque siege was about the kidnapping of Chinese brothel workers and nothing more. The Chinese would not accept an apology and demanded some action from Musharraf. He delivered. But we the United States should worry about how much pressure we should exert on Musharraf. You have got to be kidding me. If Musharraf doesn't act, we should just wait til Pakistan is stable enough. What a load of hogwash.
Second, you are attacking Obama for a position that everyone serious in government holds. Clinton also agrees with Obama (before she disagreed with him..funny) and gave an interview where she espoused that belief the same day Obama gave his excellent speech. So I ask why are you solely attacking Obama? When all the Republicand candidates were asked, they begrudgingly agreed with Obama. Romney after giving that lame one liner that you seem to think clever never answered the question whether he would have that option as President. Yet Obama is the falling "rockstar", because what again? Because he actually states what he believes. Again why are you solely attacking Obama?
Finally you stated that "he {obama} clearly has lost focus of the big picture in terms of both foreign policy and his battle with Hillary". He has not lost focus. The media distorted his policy speech, and claimed he wanted to "invade" Pakistan. You at least didn't further that exaggerated claim, but you attack Obama for a policy that all the other candidates share.
Your rather subtle deference to Hillary discredits you. Hillary's foreign policy is supposedly similiar to Obama's, but you never know what her position is because she changes it everyday. So in truth Hillary doesn't have a foreign policy. Was she not for this war, and voted to authorize this war WITHOUT READING THE NIE for obvious political reasons? Did she not argue to stay the course? Now she wants out of Iraq, because it was a mistake...but her vote was not.???? What is the common link of all her decisions? You know the answer...she voted to authorize the war because it was politically popular (with the added bonus of being tough for her presidential desires), she argued to stay the course because it was politically popular, and she is now wanting to get out of Iraq because it is the politically popular thing to do. So you must be a lover of theater. Charlatans make wonderful actors or in this case actresses.
Obama and Pakistan
Obamas statements are in line with current US policy. You college towners know its important to pay more attention to context and less to sensationalism. Its called reality 101.
Obama's Foreign Policy Blunder
To Mike Wacker:
You said: " [snip] it destabilizes Pakistan enough so that radicals can oust Musharraf and take over the country [snip]"
This sounds like wild speculation on your part. I'm wondering if it's based on any facts whatsoever?
Pakistan is controlled by its military, and a handful of powerful families. The nuclear force is to hold India at bay. Regardless of Musharraf's fate, they aren't going to let that fall into the hands of terrorists.
bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of well over 3000 innocent people from multiple countries. He has vowed to kill millions more. He's the number one most wanted criminal in the world. Should we act if a country could not, or would not act? You bet we should. And, we would.
We wouldn't be having this discussion in 2002. Back then, taking out bin Laden would have been a no-brainer. It just shows how big of a disaster Iraq has been, one which may have resulted in our becoming overly reluctant to take decisive action against the real enemy.
As for Obama's willingness to answer hypotheticals, I applaud it. It's the only way we as voters can learn something of real substance about those running. Bush while running refused to answer hypotheticals. Voters in essence accepted on faith, with little real knowledge about the man, that when the time came he would do the right thing. And, we see where that has led.
Pakistan's reply to Obama is for their street. And, it must be shameful for them to have large areas of their country not in their control where al-Queda enjoys safe-haven, and can train and plan their next acts of terror.
As the world's sole super-power, we should not fear to let other countries know what we are thinking. And, as JFK said so well, "While we should never negotiate out of fear, we should never fear to negotiate". Obama's call for talking with the world's dictators during his first year in office was exactly right.
IMO, Obama has been correct on all points. He's not your typical politician. Is the country ready to turn the page on the old ways of doing things? We will see. Sometimes change is hard. But, sometimes it's necessary.
The long term result of Obama's war are gonna be bad
The lack of praticality of Obama’s war is the present scenario in which America finds itself. Tribal area of Pakistan has been historically a graveyard of all the invaders since the last 100 years. British army at the zenith of their colonizing the world met the worst fate in the three major wars they were defeated here badly though they had no problem in conquering the world!!! British had provided special status to this region as they never really succeeded in this area. Pakistani army had always tried to subjugate this area in 1960's and had failed. USA used the CIA in this area to train the forces of these tribes for defeating the Russian invaders recently. These tribesmen are excellent fighters and have always proved that. This area is 1400 square miles of treacherous land where its very difficult to beat any guerilla insurgency. USA would need more than 100,000 troops to enter this war. Pakistani army has so far lost about 1,000 troops and has caught and killed the most top leaders of Al-Qaida than any other country, but of course the US media would never give them any credit. Pakistan is asking USA provide them actionable intelligence where Al-Qaida leadership is but American agencies are not willing to provide this information, as probably even they also don’t have any information themselves. As in Iraq they are just trying to leak an outdated intelligence regarding Al-Qaida top leaders being present in this area. These tribal people are basically civilians and have nothing to do with terrorists; Pakistan wants to work with them and does not want to have collateral damage that would happen in case of an attack without exact and specific knowledge of Al-Qaida terrorists. I feel based on the previous leakages by US intelligence agencies and the lies of the top leadership of USA it would be better to believe what Pakistani government is doing to taking out Al-Qaida terrorists. These are raw facts what the Pakistani government has contributed to the war on terror to which everybody agrees. Considering that 90% of Pakistani voters have voted for moderate leaders in the last 4 elections and always rejected extremists that have taken place since 1988. In case USA attacks Pakistan a friendly country it will lose whatever goodwill forever and all moderates would be defeated in the next elections in this country. Considering the past defeats of the armies of major countries in this tribal region as explained by me in detail of which American public and these American politicians are not very aware it is easy to enter this region and impossible to get out successfully. They would forget invasion of Iraq. Even if one means a limited war or attack by US that may also have a long term impact on the credibility of US in dealing with friendly countries in the future that may be irreparable. Oh and I forgot Pakistan is a nuclear power with 160 million population located next to Iran, Russia and China what strategic impact will that have after USA attacks a friendly country. This American attack may make sure that Pakistan becomes an extremist country that Americans may not visualize at present.
"Tribal area of Pakistan has
"Tribal area of Pakistan has been historically a graveyard of all the invaders since the last 100 years."
That's precisely what we were saying about Afghanistan in early 2001. I think we did okay in that area, don't you?
Unfortunately, you're probably right on the intelligence of Al-Qaida terrorists in Pakistan, and with our credibility being further driven into shambles. It's a complicated situation, no doubts there. But if the reports of Al-Qaida finding safe haven in Pakistan are correct, there are two complications: (1) the Bush policy on terrorism has utterly failed us, and done absolutely nothing whatsoever to redress the damage done by 9/11 or to provide us with long-term national security; and (2) we will have no choice but to confront Pakistan in some way.
Pretty depressing how Bush has failed us so completely, isn't it?