Tough on Terror Obama
Barack Obama has decided to adopt an aggressive approach towards Pakistan:
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama warned Pakistan that he would use military force if necessary to root out terrorists, the second time in two weeks that he has staked out a dramatically different road for U.S. foreign policy.
The senator’s tough talk against Pakistan comes after he pledged to meet with leaders of rogue nations who have been rebuffed by President George W. Bush.
“Let me make this clear,” Obama said. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”
Quite right. Looking back we can conclude that the US let itself be distracted by Saddam and Iraq. Looking back we can conclude that the US should have focused completely on terrorists and especially Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. The first step of this major war against terrorism – which is likely to last decades – should have been taking out the Taliban and Bin Laden and, thus, weakening Al Qaeda significantly. Obama is right when he says that Al Qaeda should still be the top priority of the US. Whatever else happens, the US should devote itself publicly to capture or kill Al Qaeda’s leaders. In this regard, the US should not compromise. If Pakistan cooperates: great. If not: the US should go in nonetheless and kill as many Al Qaeda terrorists as possible.
No matter where they are.
Obviously, Obama’s tough words are inspired by Hillary Clinton’s criticism of him. She called him naive after he said that he would hold talks with the leaders of the so-called rogue nations like Iran and North Korea, without demanding anything in return (beforehand).
On this last subject I disagree quite strongly with Obama. There should be no talks with Iran as long as Iran does not stop supporting terrorism and as long as the mullahs refuse to give up their nuclear program. The world cannot negotiate with extremists.
In the war on terrorism, the West has to be on the offensive. Not just militarily but also culturally and economically… and politically. Extremists want to spread their violent ideology, just being on the defense is not enough. We must be on the offense. We have to force the forces of radical Islam back.
The first priority is Al Qaeda, but sooner or later we will also have to deal with Hezbollah, Iran, and Hamas.
Cross posted at my own blog.
UPDATE
Corrected the name. Obviously an accident: I wrote Osama instead of Obama. My apologies.
10 Responses to “Tough on Terror Obama”
It’s too bad that Obama’s comprehensive view on foreign policy has been reduced to whether or not we go into Pakistan to get Al Qaeda. Although he may have been imprudent in saying so out loud, Obama is expressing a view that even the Bush Administration recognizes and is taking steps to implement:
http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/08/politics-of-mock-outrage.html
A lot of people knew it back before the invasion.
We support terrorism inside Iran. We haven’t been drawing down our nuclear arsenal as required under the NPT treaty. The Bush administration has invaded two more countries than Iran has since it’s inception. Does that mean no one should talk to us?
What the hell does that even mean? Have you been reading too many Giuliani speeches?
If Iran is the source of all evil in the world, how can we possibly battle them economically and politcally if we blockade them and refuse to talk with them?
How about we worry about the people that have promised to attack us instead of dealing with Israel’s problems for them?
What an ignorant post. Anybody who understands foreign policy matters knows that it is impossible for anyone to come up with a comprehensive anti-terror plan in 1 week. So if you believe Obama’s speech was inspired by Hillary’s desperate attack, then you should get yourself a real job and stop writing.
Demanding something in return before meeting your adversaries or fear of being used for propaganda is article 1.1 of a coward’s manual.
We should be on the offensive (making an attack, causing anger, position of assault). Which one of them are you referring to and against whom?
I’m sure you appreciate the fact that the real coward of the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton, who helped murder thousands of Americans in Iraq by authorizing the war. After her vote, she told Chris Mathews that she supported the president whole heartedly; today she’s rebranding herself as an anti-war candidate. She told Keith Olbermnann that she’d reach out IMMEDIATELY to the Iranians; today she says we should be cautious. She says no President ever ruled out the use of nuclear weapons, when the great Ronald Reagan had said “A nuclear war cannot be won and so must not be foughtâ€.
Clinton’s policy is one of caution and status quo. Obama’s policy is revolutionary because it is proactive and progressive. Choose this day whom ye prefer.
Obama is officially the only candidate on both sides of the aisle with a comprehensive plan to protect America from terror. His plan was endorsed by members of the 9/11 commision and the Iraq study group. Read what the experts say:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/01/weighing_in_on_obama.html
If you’re an open-minded person interested in the truth, Listen to the speech for yourself:
http://www.campaignnetwork.org/
Or read the full text:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CpHR#extended
You’re joking right? We’ve invaded and occupied two of Iran’s neighbors, and they are the extremists?
Look, extremists are exactly the people you have to confront. Currently, talks are our only way to confront them thanks to the clusterf@ck we’ve gotten ourselves into in the region.
So I’m curious as to what you feel we should do. Since you’ve ruled out any negotiations, and we have no military option, should we just ignore the problem?
This may be a minor editorial note, but I’m assuming you meant to type Obama and not Osama. I’m also going to give the benefit of the doubt that this was an innocent typo, particularly since your post seems to support Obama. However, it is really beginning to frost me that so many, particularly Republican/conservatives seem to be making this typo in an attempt to conflate Barack Obama with Bin Laden, a real travesty. They have nothing in common and a single letter difference between their names so I would advise more caution in the future.
“Looking back we can conclude that……”
Part of foreign policy, first and foremost, should entail trying to foresee at what we would be looking back as a consequence. A failure in assessing consequences was exactly what led to the Iraq debacle.
Everyone in America is quite aware of AlQaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other groups using terrorism
Everyone should also be aware that guerilla warfare has been notoriously difficicult to fight throughout the ages, so what these new calls
to fight, fight, fight mean exactly is glaringly unclear (more accurately, not mentioned).
Should we bomb a few extremist mosques in London, for example? Or should we just declare that huge part of the globe where terrorists are currently active a Super Axis of Evil?
Obama’s speech referring to Pakistan has been twisted out of shape BTW, with everyone reading into it whatever their favorite daydream happens to be. He, himself, should have been clearer instead of giving in to the lure of making campaign points. The consequences of any specific action inside Pakistan is precisely what complicates the matter, and I don’t think anyone with half a brain cell would fail to worry about consequences in an unstable environment like nuclear Pakistan.
What, then, is the point of a rallying call to action without specifying what action we are rallied to take? The only specific I find here is the ‘no talk” principle. Although containing an element of risk for the future, talking to the insurgents in Iraq is the one action that has produced results in fighting AlQaeda in Iraq. What should be primary, then, not talking or fighting AQ?
The purpose of fighting is to win. Without a viable plan to win a fight, talking about fighting is just talking.
Anna it was indeed a typo and… I have called conservatives out who did like that: for instance the Romney photo. It has been corrected.
“Obviously, Obama’s tough words are inspired by Hillary Clinton’s criticism of him.”
Not a bad story overall, Mike, but it would be better if you would have phrased this as a question (Are Obama’s tough words inspired by..). Too many lousy wannabe mindreaders already on record…
Wow! How a few sentences about Pakistan and AQ reverberate around the globe!
I have to admit I was taken by surprise by the amount of attention and interpretation those few words got.
It may be good, in the end, that the discussions have brought up aspects of foreign policy seldom discussed in the open, like questionable allies. On the other hand, there are risks in public statements that contain no ifs, ands or buts.
Terrorism being such a complex subject, I think Obama would have done better to introduce the Pakistan issue in a context containing more nuance
and details. The way it is, other people are doing the details and nuances on his behalf, when it might have been better to hear it from the horse’s mouth.