I have to say, I think Obama's right on all three counts in this case.
1)
The senator from New York added, "When you've got that big an agenda facing you, you should not telegraph to our adversaries that you're willing to meet with them without preconditions during the first year in office."
Though he added that there is substantive difference between him and Clinton over meeting with adversaries, he added, "I think that strong countries and strong presidents meet and talk with our adversaries."
This to me is just less-than-optimal politicking by Sen. Clinton, and I think Obama's got it right. I can't think of a single person in my life that even if I were to have a huge problem with them, I would absolutely refuse to talk to them until certain pre-conditions were met. It's instead valuable and puts you on the high ground to begin talking and enter their "space", and once there begin to work together to achieve those desired conditions. We've even seen it countless times in Hollywood - the hero has a gun pointed at them by the token emotionally-maxed-out individual, but they talk with the person gradually until they can take the gun away from them. I've never seen a movie where instead they said "I refuse to talk to you until you point that gun somewhere else", but I'd guess the frequency of success for our hero would be much less if done that way.
2)
Clinton and Obama also disagreed over his previous remarks that nuclear weapons should be off the table in dealing with Pakistan, where U.S. intelligence officials say al Qaeda-linked militants are holed up in tribal regions. Clinton has said it is not appropriate to take any option off the table on such a matter.
Same here - it's time to get away from our "we just might be craaaazy!" fallback defense and instead work from strategic diplomatic and military alternatives to every extent possible. If those are done reasonably well, I strongly believe that nuclear strikes should never become a necessity. Strategic international diplomacy as a first step (and not just any ham-fisted diplomacy, but approaches whose outcomes have already been considered) including economic and other approaches, then targeted military strikes if truly necessary, and only then do we start needing to talk about other alternatives. With a leader who's thinking about these things, I think diplomacy would meet at least 80% of our needs, targeted military strikes if necessary could answer a further 10-15%, and that remaining sliver is the only time worse alternatives should be considered. I've got no problem with Obama saying it should be off the table, because he knows that if things get to that point after he's exhausted all other options and can demonstrate that, he'll still have the support of the American people.
3)
Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina said that Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, "is not a wonderful leader, but he provides some stability in Pakistan. And there is a great risk, if he's overthrown, about a radical government taking over."
Has Obama even called for the replacement of Musharraf? Seems like there's a lot of spin around this topic. He's said something along the lines that if he had actionable intelligence that Bin Laden was in Pakistan, and if Musharraf continued his incompetence/obstruction, that he'd have no problem sending special forces in with or without Musharraf's permission. I'm okay with that, it's a bold step but a justifiable one.
No comments:
Post a Comment