Hillary accuses Obama of being “naive” for saying he would sit down at the highest level with Iran and Syria, etc., so he decides now to become hawkish, while simultaneously excoriating President Bush on his reckless war in Iraq.

Allright, so Obama’s solution to a reckless foreign policy and the war in Iraq without support from the “International Community,” is to posit a unilateral invasion of Pakistan, a country on a precarious and narrow edge of alliance with us on fighting terrorism? Why? Because that’s where Osama Bin Laden is supposed to be, and everyone knows that as soon as you catch or kill OBL, then we’ve won, and all the terrorists will take their IEDs and go home–as long as we cross our hearts and promise not to fight them anymore. Any OTHER terrorists we kill or capture, three more step up in their place, but not Osama; his group of terrorists are just like those ugly guys in the Fifth Element where if you just take the leader out, the rest of them won’t fight anymore. Just send in Obama the negotiator to take him out.

So if Obama is elected, how does he explain these remarks to Musharraf, when it comes crunch time on the Aghan border, there?

“Hey, Mr President, you know…I was just pandering to those right-wing nut jobs for votes. What’s a fella to do? Need that Middle America vote. You know how it is. I certainly can’t let that Clinton lady call me ‘naive,’ can I?”

And his solution to an irresponsible approach to the war on terror is to:

1) Sit down at the highest level with the extremist nutjobs we’re fighting.
2) Downgrade our “moderate” allies’ wishes and border sovereignty as not very important.
3) Double overall foreign aid to $50 billion.
4) Make foreign aid to Pakistan conditional on a Musharraf success at a Taliban crackdown.

I’m all for number four, number three is just sophistry, but does anyone but me find one and two a little bit odd? How about:

1) Refusing to negotiate with terrorist-supporting regimes.
2) Find more ways to uphold, support, develop and downright coddle those regimes that HAVEN’T sworn our destruction as their top priority (still a majority of the world, thankfully) forcing them to further alienate those regimes that HAVE sworn our destruction as their top priority.
3) Make ALL foreign aid to terrorist heavy nations conditional on their Governments’ crackdown on terrorist training camps…and (not to blatantly preempt a Scottie retort) that would include Israel AND the Palestinian Authority, AND Egypt, AND Jordan, etc.

On that note, does anyone know how to find 2006 U.S. Foreign Aid numbers. The latest I found is 2005:

Top 16 recipients of U.S. foreign aid for 2005:
1. Israel 2.58 Billion
2. Egypt 1.84 Billion
3. Afganistan 0.98 Billion
4. Pakistan 0.70 Billion
5. Colombia 0.57 Billion
6. Sudan 0.50 Billion
7. Jordan 0.48 Billion
8. Uganda 0.25 Billion
9. Kenya 0.24 Billion
10. Ethiopia 0.19 Billion
11. South Africa 0.19 Billion
12. Peru 0.19 Billion
13. Indonesia 0.18 Billion
14. Bolivia 0.18 Billion
15. Nigeria 0.18 Billion
16. Zambia 0.18 Billion

washingtonpost.com

Obama more naive than Hillary supposed.

3 thoughts on “Obama more naive than Hillary supposed.

  • Based on the Post article, his comments weren’t too extreme. Although his tone is hawkish, I think everyone has erroneously labeled him a dove solely upon his (prescient) opposition to the Iraq war. Obama’s solutions (per your comments):

    1) Sit down at the highest level with the extremist nutjobs we’re fighting.

    Nutjobs or not, leaders of any state will at least know that their words won’t be distorted on the way up the ladder. I recall from articles regarding Colin Powell that foreign diplomats were less revealing to him after his role in the White House was diminished as a result of the Iraq War. I’m not saying that this is by any means going to yield any breakthroughs, but only that it isn’t the foreign policy disaster many make it out to be.

    2) Downgrade our “moderate” allies’ wishes and border sovereignty as not very important.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m guessing that you’re basing this on the following comment by Obama –

    “Let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will”

    My problem with Obama’s statement is that he needlessly called out Musharraf by name and potentially offended him. The fact that Obama said we would act on actionable intelligence even if the target is in Pakistan isn’t a huge blunder, as I think Bush and most others would do the same thing if the target were “high-value” (which I presume to mean Bin Laden). I didn’t gather that Obama was referring to a large-scale “war” with Pakistan as you imply.

    3) Double overall foreign aid to $50 billion.
    4) Make foreign aid to Pakistan conditional on a Musharraf success at a Taliban crackdown.

    I hate the concept of foreign aid and believe we’d be better served by taking it out of our foreign policy playbook. I think politicians (Dems especially) like to say “I’ll double this” or “I’ll triple that” just because they think it sounds intelligent.

    Lastly, I do think Obama has a credibility issue with his call to dramatically increase our presence/spending in Afghanistan and simultaneously end our presence in Iraq. Not that I want an increased presence in either country, but I just think he’s being inconsistent.

  • we could probably talk at length about #1, and it sounds like we agree on 3 and 4…

    As far as #2. My meaning wasn’t clear. My point was the idiocy of calling out allies, just like he called out President Howard from Australia several months ago, saying essentially, “I’m glad I disagree with an ally of President Bush.” That may have colored my opinion.

    I did not imply a war with Pakistan, but saying you’re going to invade your allies’ territory (especially one whose relationship with us is as precarious as Musharraf’s) if they don’t do what you want is not the diplomacy that I would expect from someone who says he’s willing to sit down with the likes of Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad, etc.

    It was more the contrast and combination of alienating allies and accommodating enemies that I found a little strange.

  • Thanks for the clarification. Obama’s comments do seem to be ever-so-slightly trending towards “we’ll practice diplomacy as long you agree with us”. Eerily reminiscent another prominent politician….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *