'Hope' is politics, not real Iran, Iraq policy

[kinggovernor]

'Hope' is politics, not real Iran, Iraq policy

February 29, 2008
STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley@suntimes.com

The political salvos over Iraq between Barack Obama and John McCain the other day made for good political theater. More important, the exchange offered a revealing contrast between the politics of realism and the politics of hope.

It began with a question to Obama during the Democratic presidential debate Tuesday. Obama has pledged to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and was asked if he reserved the right to go back into Iraq. He responded that "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

The next day McCain mocked Obama, ''I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq." Obama fired back, ''I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets. But I have some news for John McCain. There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

So what is Obama's Iraq strategy? It seems to be that he knows al-Qaida is in Iraq but he's going to pull out anyway. But if al-Qaida establishes a base in Iraq, he will go back in. Does that sound confused to you? Me, too.

His policy, in a nutshell, seems to be this: Pull troops out of Iraq and hope for the best. And anyway, the real issue is what cowboy Bush and McCain did five years ago.

Given the nation's weariness with the war, that message has proved to be appealing to Democratic primary voters. They want no truck with the grim realism of McCain's position that Iraq is part of the wider struggle against Islamist jihadism and will require a long-term U.S. commitment. Arguing over what happened in 2003 is a way to avoid facing today's realities, McCain reasonably argues.

Hope also figures in Obama's willingness, as president, to meet, without preconditions, America's adversaries like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently said he wouldn't "shake hands with people who refuse to recognize Israel." He didn't mention names but he meant the Iranian president.

Obama's position is cheered by his enthusiasts. They see his embrace of yes-we-can-talk diplomacy as a refreshing about-face from Bush's bellicosity. Hillary Clinton is the voice of realism this time. But her efforts to paint Obama's position as a naive one for a president in a dangerous world apparently aren't swaying many Democrats. Her cause wasn't helped when Bush chimed in Thursday, saying meeting with a tyrant like Ahmadinejad only buttresses an oppressive government, confuses U.S. allies and demoralizes reformers in Iran.

Given the complexities of the world, a president occasionally does have to meet with unsavory characters in pursuing vital foreign policy initiatives. Even when you think you've laid the proper groundwork, disaster can follow. President Bill Clinton labored mightily to coax Yasser Arafat to a negotiated end of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict only to see his work and peace hopes atomized by Arafat's allegiance to terrorism.

A President Obama would be taking a big gamble meeting with a rogue like Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Iran wants nuclear weapons, is a sponsor of terror responsible for mass murder as far away as Argentina, and has been at the heart of Islamist-inspired turmoil for nearly three decades. It stones women to death for adultery. It executes more children than any country in the world. Tehran lashes gays and kills them by public hanging. It jails, tortures and executes political dissidents.

When Columbia University, to its shame, gave him a platform last year, Ahmadinejad used it, in effect, to advocate an end to Israel, deny the Holocaust and claim no homosexuals are in Iran.

In a recent speech, Ahmadinejad said Iran has two missions. One was to complete the Islamic revolution in Iran. "Our nation's second important mission," he said, "is introducing the Islamic revolution to the entire mankind."

Hope may make for a good American political campaign, but it's not the basis for foreign policy.

This article really hit the nail on the head, I am surprised it came out of Chicago. Obama has no real foreign policy strategy, just that he isn't going to be Bush.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

This article really hit the nail on the head, I am surprised it came out of Chicago. Obama has no real foreign policy strategy, just that he isn't going to be Bush.

Iraq is only a TACTICAL battle on the war on terror. Leaving it, whether in "victory" - whatever that means these days - or "defeat", does not mean we won or loss the war on terror. Afghanistan is still strategically more important as is Pakistan, not to mention getting rid of any terror cells that are in our country or our in our allies right now.

Getting out of Iraq so that we can concentrate our resources on more strategically important things can be argued as the right policy in the objective to make America safer. A strategy Obama has been arguing all along.

There is a strategy - of course not perfect - the reporter is not looking at the big picture.

[bheld]

If we leave Iraq will Al Quida stay?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Iraq is only a TACTICAL battle on the war on terror. Leaving it, whether in "victory" - whatever that means these days - or "defeat", does not mean we won or loss the war on terror. Afghanistan is still strategically more important as is Pakistan, not to mention getting rid of any terror cells that are in our country or our in our allies right now.

Getting out of Iraq so that we can concentrate our resources on more strategically important things can be argued as the right policy in the objective to make America safer. A strategy Obama has been arguing all along.

There is a strategy - of course not perfect - the reporter is not looking at the big picture.

What do you mean by only tactical?

Afghanistan and Iraq are of equal importance, we cannot allow Al Qaeda to set up shop in either country.

He is arguing that he wants to leave but return if Al Qaeda is there. Well they are now, and he just answers back "well that is Bush's fault". That isn't a real policy.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by bheld

If we leave Iraq will Al Quida stay?

they intend to stay and create an Islamic Republic. They want to use Iraq as a home base for launching attacks into foreign countries

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

What do you mean by only tactical?

Our Objective - To Make America Safe from "Extremists" and prevent another 9/11

Strategy -

Take out Osama
Destroy AQ

Tactics -

Invade Afghanistan
Invade Iraq (How this matches the strategy and objectives I have no idea)
Monitor Overseas calls
etc
etc

Looking at the big picture - One can easily make the argument that Iraq was a tactical blunder in the whole "war on terror" because neither strategies were fulfilled, which means we didn't achieve our overall objectives. By being in Iraq we didn't take out Osama and AQ got stronger, it is a failure in those regards.

However in the big picture, we can still fulfill our objectives by concentrating our resources on the other tactics like Afghanistan. But in order to do that we need more resources - short of a draft and higher taxes - the only logical thing we can do it pull out of the tactical front that yields no results (Iraq) and put it where we can maximize it.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Our Objective - To Make America Safe from "Extremists" and prevent another 9/11

Strategy -

Take out Osama
Destroy AQ

Tactics -

Invade Afghanistan
Invade Iraq (How this matches the strategy and objectives I have no idea)
Monitor Overseas calls
etc
etc

Looking at the big picture - One can easily make the argument that Iraq was a tactical blunder in the whole "war on terror" because neither strategies were fulfilled, which means we didn't achieve our overall objectives. By being in Iraq we didn't take out Osama and AQ got stronger, it is a failure in those regards.

However in the big picture, we can still fulfill our objectives by concentrating our resources on the other tactics like Afghanistan. But in order to do that we need more resources - short of a draft and higher taxes - the only logical thing we can do it pull out of the tactical front that yields no results (Iraq) and put it where we can maximize it.

so Obama agrees that there is Al Qaeda in Iraq right now, but wants to leave but wants to come back if there is Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Do you see a problem with that policy?

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

so Obama agrees that there is Al Qaeda in Iraq right now, but wants to leave but wants to come back if there is Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Do you see a problem with that policy?

Yes I do, but I see a bigger issue with letting Osama and his cohorts escape in the hills of Afghanistan or Pakistan. It sucks but the latter are bigger threats to our security than AQ in Iraq.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

so Obama agrees that there is Al Qaeda in Iraq right now, but wants to leave but wants to come back if there is Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Do you see a problem with that policy?

I want to know how Obama will pay for it and how many American lives it will cost to retake control of what we already have?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Yes I do, but I see a bigger issue with letting Osama and his cohorts escape in the hills of Afghanistan or Pakistan. It sucks but the latter are bigger threats to our security than AQ in Iraq.

Ok so the article is correct, he is full of rhetoric and does not have a solid policy.

I agree that Afghanistan/Pakistan is equally important but what would you do about terrorists running into Pakistan? Would you invade it?

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Ok so the article is correct, he is full of rhetoric and does not have a solid policy.

No the article is not correct when you look at the big picture war on terror and our objective to make America safer. Its a perspective thing, you can argue both sides (to be in or leave) persuasively but in the end, both sides are not 100% correct and both have consequences.

I agree that Afghanistan/Pakistan is equally important but what would you do about terrorists running into Pakistan? Would you invade it?

I am not a pacifist, I believe we reserve the right to protect our citizens - we are in the unique position of being the most powerful country in the world, and as such, our citizens face unique dangers other citizens do not.

That being said, you don't just invade a sovereign nation, rather, with a nation like Pakistan, you work with them and assist (not just take their word for it but actually participate) in tactical operations of known terrorist locations and take them out.

We become the silent partner, the domestic and foreign news will report on Pakistan taking out the terror camps, not America going into another land and bombing.

Look at it like this, if Canada needed to protect some interest it had by taking out a hostile cell in our country, would it look better if they sent a plane and bombed one our towns or would it look better if they worked and assisted the FBI and all we learned is that the FBI took it out themselves? No matter how noble the intention is, it is the perception of it that creates judgement and actions

[motivez]

Once we leave Iraq, Al Qaeda wont be there.. the Shia majority in Iraq will target them and get rid of them.. they have a vast ideological difference and don't like each other, and when they aren't busy killing Americans, they fight and kill each other.

It's nice to see people taking a more in depth look at Obama's real lack of depth on the issues though, that's my biggest problem with him.. every time he has to talk about something substantively, he's usually agreeing with Hillary or one of the other people who were running, and then expands on what they said with generic rhetoric that speaks very broadly and vaguely.

Looks like he's going to wrap up the nomination though, so hopefully he can get a crash course by the time he's debating McCain.

[RMNIXON]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows John McCain with a slight lead over both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. McCain now leads Obama 48% to 43% and Clinton 47% to 44%!

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's nice to see people taking a more in depth look at Obama's real lack of depth on the issues though, that's my biggest problem with him.. every time he has to talk about something substantively, he's usually agreeing with Hillary or one of the other people who were running, and then expands on what they said with generic rhetoric that speaks very broadly and vaguely.

How is what he says any less depth than McCain or Hillary with respect to Iraq? And when it comes to healthcare, you know full well their plans will not pass without some kind of modifications so her depth in that plan is really an exercise in futility.

She likes to think of herself as a "policy wonk" but funny thing, many Presidents who were like that had some of the most lackluster Presidencies in our history. Policy wonks make poor leaders

[motivez]

Unlike Hillary, Edwards, and McCain, Obama has never really explained in detail what he wants to do in Iraq, at least that I've seen. Not in the debates I've watched or in any speeches I've managed to catch.

This most recent time he tried to give a specific answer about something relating to Iraq, about going back in and attacking Al Qaeda.. has been a huge fiasco for him, because it highlighted his inexperience, and let McCain respond in a way that made him look that way.

As far as health care, eh, the plans are so similar it doesn't really matter too much, aside from the fact that Obama's plan writes financial instability into the plan from the get go, but aside from that, Obama's plan will be chipped away until it doesn't resemble anything he's talking about now while he gives away the farm in the interest of compromising people that will despise his plan and work as hard as they can to defeat it.

And I don't know why you continue to try to get me to defend Hillary, but it's getting pretty old. Having doubts about Obama and wanting more from him doesn't equate to defending Hillary

[David Octavius]

Dude I've never asked you to defend Hillary so your canned answer is getting old and tiering. Your problem with Obama is lack of experience, I'm comparing that to Hillary who people seem to think has it (and since you bring up her name when you talk about it in respect to Obama), so I use it so I can draw contrasts.

But ok, take away the name Hillary from my posts, my points still stand about what so called "experience" can do. Yet you don't address, you keep thinking all I am doing it making you defend Her. Don't defend her, but don't complain about experience if you can't even answer the substance of my posts.

[motivez]

You imply it in your posts, but whatever. I don't support Hillary.

My problem with Obama isn't lack of experience per se, but rather the fact that he's failed time and time again to be expansive on the issues. He talks in generalities instead of specifics.

We saw it last debate, if he had been asked the question about Russia before Hillary, I think he would have been in trouble. And, even after relying on Hillary's answer to gloss over giving specifics, he gave really no information about how he'd address the issue.

Let's look at the transcript:

RUSSERT: Before the primary on Tuesday, on Sunday, March 2, there's an election in Russia for the successor to President Putin. What can you tell me about the man who's going to be Mr. Putin's successor?

CLINTON: Well, I can tell you that he's a hand-picked successor, that he is someone who is obviously being installed by Putin, who Putin can control, who has very little independence, the best we know. You know, there's a lot of information still to be acquired. That the so-called opposition was basically run out of the political opportunity to wage a campaign against Putin's hand-picked successor, and the so-called leading opposition figure spends most of his time praising Putin. So this is a clever but transparent way for Putin to hold on to power, and it raises serious issues about how we're going to deal with Russia going forward.

I have been very critical of the Bush administration for what I believe to have been an incoherent policy toward Russia. And with the reassertion of Russia's role in Europe, with some of the mischief that they seem to be causing in supporting Iran's nuclear ambitions, for example, it's imperative that we begin to have a more realistic and effective strategy toward Russia. But I have no doubt, as president, even though technically the meetings may be with the man who is labeled as president, the decisions will be made by Putin.

RUSSERT: Who will it be? Do you know his name?

CLINTON: Medvedev -- whatever.

RUSSERT: Yes.

CLINTON: Yes.

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, do you know anything about him?

OBAMA: Well, I think Senator Clinton speaks accurately about him. He is somebody who was hand-picked by Putin. Putin has been very clear that he will continue to have the strongest hand in Russia in terms of running the government. And, you know, it looks -- just think back to the beginning of President Bush's administration when he said -- you know, he met with Putin, looked into his eyes and saw his soul, and figured he could do business with him.

He then proceeded to neglect our relationship with Russia at a time when Putin was strangling any opposition in the country when he was consolidating power, rattling sabers against his European neighbors, as well as satellites of the former Soviet Union. And so we did not send a signal to Mr. Putin that, in fact, we were going to be serious about issues like human rights, issues like international cooperation that were critical to us. That is something that we have to change.

There's a clear and obvious difference in the responses, and it's one that's been consistent throughout the campaign on a number of issues.

In the debates, he relies on another candidate to give the specifics (because they're asked instead of him), then gives a general answer that doesn't really talk about how he'd address the issue.

Even after Russert's followup, he essentially said what anyone could say, "Lets work with the international community." .. it's a platitude.

If it was just a one time thing, no big deal.. but whoever the next President is will have to be able to have a strong hand and the ability to clean up after Bush, if Obama doesn't give us specifics on how he'd deal with something, how are we supposed to be able to judge his ability to be President?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

My problem with Obama isn't lack of experience per se, but rather the fact that he's failed time and time again to be expansive on the issues. He talks in generalities instead of specifics.

And I think that is starting to worry a number of Democrats.

Lets face it, McCain will never beat Obama at American Idol.

So he will come at him by contrasting issues. Hillary has been weak at this because they are to close. McCain will not have as big a problem in trying to define himself as an alternative. He also has a bipartisan record he can back up with facts, not just rhetoric.