US presidential candidate Barack Obama is the only person in the race who has the right ideas when it comes to foreign policy. Obama has taken several controversial positions that have carried huge political risk early on in the game, and he has held his positions. Far from being irresponsible and naïve, or someone who tells "fairy tales" as the nervous Clintons have branded him, Obama has an intricate knowledge of international politics and is beginning to flex his policy muscles.
Obama has stated out loud what should be obvious to us all: (1) The US president should negotiate without conditions with unsavory leaders of nations bordering America’s massively hemorrhaging colonial blunder in Iraq, including Bashar Assad of Syria and Mahmoud Ahmadenijad of Iran. Not because it’s fun to set up a Beer Chug with Bashar Night, but because we have no choice. (2) America must be prepared to demonstrate the extent of its will to defeat terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan if the leaders of those states are unable or unwilling to do so, as they have so far proven to be. (3) The Iraq invasion was always a bad idea, even though most Democrats thought otherwise. The occupation there has degenerated into an incompetently run police action in the midst of several bloody civil wars raging between and even within the rival political factions of Iraq, and we must soon remove our military apparatus from there in order to focus on our real terrorist threats. (How ironic that the same neo cons who scoffed at the concept I have always championed, that terrorism must be defeated by uncompromising law enforcement instead of war, are reduced to attempting to sell the world on our ability to police the rotten slums of Baghdad and the opium fields of Afghanistan.
Obama’s above-mentioned principles demonstrate so clearly the correct course for the world’s only superpower to take on the path to world peace. Use the "soft" power of diplomacy to accomplish our national security goals, back it up by being prepared to attack terrorists directly where they are based, and pull out of the worst foreign misadventure since Vietnam.
In a Democratic primary debate, Hillary resorted to mud slinging in response to Obama’s desire to open communication channels to foreign leaders. Besides calling his ideas "irresponsible and frankly naïve," Hillary even went so far as to say, "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse." This attempt at appearing shrewd was extraordinarily unproductive, especially because she herself has demonstrated the willingness to meet with unsavory foreign leaders after first laying the groundwork through lower-level meetings. Here is the equivalent of the debate exchange:
Debate question: "Will you go to work out tomorrow, without any conditions?"
Obama: "Yes sir. I will go to the gym tomorrow, because that’s a good idea. It would be a bad idea not to do so. The current administration doesn’t like to sweat for some reason."
Hillary: "How irresponsible and frankly naïve. You’re not supposed to go to the gym without putting shoes on first. Oh, and you might get injured. But it’s true, the current administration is wrong about everything."
Well, of course Obama already knows all this. He already knows that you are supposed to put your shoes on before you go to the gym. He already knows that some lackeys of a lower government pay grade from the US State Department and Iran’s Foreign Ministry will need to get together first and talk things over. He never said otherwise. What was he supposed to do, say the following?
Obama: "I will go to the gym tomorrow. But first, I will put on my socks, shoes, shirt, shorts, sweats, and go for a shave. Then I’ll take a shower. Oh, and if I need to, I’ll go to the toilet beforehand."
Saying you won’t go to the gym because you might get injured is like saying we shouldn’t negotiate with other countries because the diplomacy may be used for propoganda. What does it mean- Hillary is afraid foreign leaders will use a high-level meeting for "propaganda" purposes? I have thought about this question. I honestly don’t understand what the big deal is. First of all, there is no tangible proof of this, largely because we haven’t negotiated with hostile leaders in such a long time. Secondly, and more importantly, we are the world’s only superpower- are we supposed to be afraid that some foreign leader might potentially use a meeting with the US president for some internal political purposes? Oh no. Scary! This non-existent problem is not nearly as pressing as the foreign fighters and money pouring into Iraq from neighboring countries right now to kill our boys. We need Assad and Ahmadenijad to help stem this flow whether we like it or not. Like Obama says, there is nothing wrong with talking to these countries to let them know who we are as Americans.
The power-sharing leaders of Pakistan and Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan are different animals. They are somewhat friendly towards America, not least because of the billions of dollars in US aid that is keeping the two governments in power. However, neither leader is able or willing to fully mobilize their forces against Al-Qaeda and other terrorist elements in their land, mainly for political reasons. That’s what happens when an unknown fraction of your army and police forces, along with large swaths of the general population are made up of Al-Qaeda and Taliban sympathizers. The Bush administration is eager to point out to us that Al-Qaeda is alive and plotting the next attack against us. The intelligence community tells the damning story of terrorists doing this planning in Pakistan and Afghanistan; in this environment, with this evidence, is there any reason not to go in there ourselves and finish these men off? Isn’t that what national defense is supposed to be about? It was brilliant that Obama voiced this sentiment- and spelled out how to really defeat terrorism. America must be willing to send in the military or police to any corner of the world to catch one of the 9/11 perpetrators who killed 3,000 Americans if the host government does not do so- even New York City (although something tells me that NYPD would take down a proven terrorist with fairly rabid zeal way before the Feds could get a word in edgewise).
And then there’s Iraq. James Baker was right- the situation is grave and deteriorating. It is a full-blown civil war now, and American soldiers are unnecessarily dying in the cross-fire of an ungrateful country still suffering from thousands of years of unresolved differences and badly carved up borders, a legacy of the last white power to invade and then leave the land- Great Britain. Barack Obama correctly predicted this exact scenario many months before the invasion in March 2003. And he is right in pushing for America to pull out. Each day of our extended presence there directly correlates to a reduction in national security as we continue to break our own military’s back, and to boot lose the only battle that really matters anyway: for the hearts and minds of the Middle East.
How could one be against pulling our troops and intelligence efforts out of a place that poses no security threat to us, and focusing them on real and actionable problems? How could one be against negotiating with the people in charge of countries with elements who are destabilizing our puppet government in Iraq? How could one be against destroying a proven terrorist threat that nobody else is dealing with? It boggles the mind. I do know that Obama has articulated all of these no-brainers while nobody else, Republican or Democrat has. Electing him as the next US president is just as much a no-brainer.