barack obama, cowboy
Yesterday, Barack Obama laid out his foreign policy positions, revealing for the first time a dramatically different agenda in response to the sisyphic bickering in Congress and the media over Iraq. Obama’s plans were sweeping and startlingly different than any current agenda– at least any mainstream agenda– and although the Senator embraced once again the rhetoric of withdrawal, his new policy positions include something that no other candidate has yet endorsed:
Barack Obama threatened an invasion of Pakistan.
In an age when the progressive movement (of which Obama has at times painted himself a supporter) uses the illusion of nuance to attack their political opponents, Obama’s bold promise to use military force in Pakistan without the approval of Pervez Musharraf is strikingly dangerous, especially give that Pakistan is a nuclear-capable nation that has threatened their neighboring democracy, India on multiple occasions. Considering the overt cooperation of Pakistan in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Obama’s threat could come as a slap in the face to an erstwhile ally– especially given the tremendous unpopularity of the War on Terror amongst Pakistan’s population. (Not to mention the logistical impossibility of an invasion, which could no doubt spark a world war).
In an age when George W. Bush is routinely painted as a “go it alone” cowboy, unconcerned with the diplomatic repercussions of his actions, Obama’s “tough talk” comes as a distinct surprise. Indeed, next to this kind of saber-rattling, George W. Bush’s consultation of the U.N. (and indeed, Congress) appears the height of diplomacy.
Nevertheless, Obama’s threats represent the logical conclusion of much of the Democratic Party’s rhetoric in recent years, which has focused strongly on the notion of “Iraq as distraction” from the War on Terror. Unable to admit that the Bush Administration’s success in fostering limited allies in the region has proven their “cowboy” mudslinging false, the only logical way to harmonize withdrawal from Iraq as a means toward fighting the War on Terror is to propose a shift in military strategy toward countries like Pakistan.
To be fair, Pakistan has a great deal to account for, especially in the north, where Al Qaeda remains strong, but the question remains: is military action in Pakistan the right option? More acutely, is threatening military action against Pakistan the best way to ensure that Al Qaeada cannot launch another 9/11 from the region? And what does that mean for American foreign policy?
Another, perhaps overlooked conclusion that can be drawn from Obama’s unwise posturing is that it represents the clearest example yet of how young and inexperienced he is. Beyond the obvious, the timing of this political announcement is terrible– in the midst of an upswing in confidence in Iraq (and after even the New York Times admits that a turnaround may be in sight), attempting to release such an explosive challenge to conventional wisdom is a tremendous misstep for an otherwise slick and professional campaign. Expect other Democratic candidates to distance themselves from Obama after this announcement– we have, perhaps, the first thinning of the herd of the 2008 election cycle.
Obama, it seems, lacks nuance– the very criticism leveled against Bush for his invasion of Iraq. At this point, we have to ask ourselves whether or not the nuance of a U.N. mandate is required of Democratic candidates as well as of Republican Presidents, and if so, why Obama should be allowed to make such dangerous foreign policy proposals without serious political consequences.
The reaction to this extraordinarily unwise saber-rattling should be instructive: will progressives attack Obama with the same vitriol that they have time and time again unleashed on George W. Bush, or will the glaring contradiction of such dangerous “cowboy diplomacy” versus the measured, patient attempts by the Bush administration to gain approval for the Iraq war continue? The progressive movement is being unwittingly tested, and their reactions to this announcement will be a benchmark in just how honest (or dishonest) they wish to be.
Time will tell whether or not the Democratic (and progressive) base will allow Obama to continue making such absurd policy statements without challenge. In an already overcrowded race, Obama cannot rely on his fellow Democrats to press a like agenda. Given that he has made his candidacy extremely vulnerable via such a strange and obviously unwise policy, expect to see this exploited by every candidate, regardless of party. The coming backpedaling from the Obama camp will most likely be severe– and hopefully, so will the consequences.
UPDATE: Obama comments on his proposed nuclear policy (or doesn’t, we’re not sure):
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons ”in any circumstance.”
”I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” Obama said, with a pause, ”involving civilians.” Then he quickly added, ”Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”
The cognitive dissonance is staggering.
