Barack Obama: does he have what it takes?
59
The actions Obama advocates
Barack Obama has surprised a lot of people with his positions concerning military action.
He was an early opponent of Bush administration policies on Iraq. In the fall of 2002, before the start of the Iraq War, Obama addressed an anti-war rally in Chicago by saying, "I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings." Strong words.
In speaking to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in November 2006, Obama called for a "phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq" and more efforts at diplomacy with Syria and Iran. In March 2007, in a speech to AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby, he said that while the U.S. "should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."
In August 2007, in a speech detailing his strategy for fighting global terrorism, Obama said, "I understand that President Musharraf [of Pakistan] has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
In a December 2005 Washington Post opinion column and at the Save Darfur rally in April 2006, Obama called for more assertive action to oppose genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. He has divested $180,000 in personal holdings of Sudan-related stock, and has urged divestment from companies doing business in Iran.
Smart or reckless?
During a debate in Iowa August 2007, Obama, who opposed the Iraq war, pointed out that conventional wisdom is what led some of his opponents to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. Sens. Clinton, Edwards, Dodd and Biden voted to authorize the war in October 2003, with all now saying they regret giving Bush that power.
Dmitry Shlapentokh, PhD, is associate professor of history, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Indiana University South Bend, said:
Wall Street Journal commentators approved of Obama's comments regarding military action in Pakistan, saying that Obama has begun to sound like a good neo-con. They added that "realistic thinking" regarding foreign policy has even begun to seize people such as Obama, who is seen as being on the left wing of the Democratic Party.
Still, one could question whether Obama's statement is an indication of rational thinking. And the problem is not with Obama, but with the US public in general.
Critics of theories [advocating preemtive action] insist that these irresponsible statements about preventive war, especially nuclear war, are just the predilection of a narrow circle of intellectuals known as neo-conservatives who believe that the US can remodel the world by using its military superiority. Obama's recent statements indicate that this view is not merely limited to conservatives, but has spread among a considerable segment of the US public. And this poses very serious problems.
War has been, unfortunately, a way of life for millennia and will not go away. All powers, especially nuclear powers, should take into account all the scenarios of war, including the possibility of preventive nuclear war. This implies that the leaders and society in general should understand the implication of these actions. Any US preventive war against Iran would lead to a jump in oil prices and the increased danger of terrorist attacks on a greater scale.
A strike against Pakistan, a nuclear power, as advocated by Obama could lead to the collapse of President General Pervez Musharraf's regime and increase the chance of nuclear weapons being acquired by terrorists. And any nuclear war - even the most "successful" from a US point of view - would be an unimaginable catastrophe.
Those who plan such events should prepare the country for the implications.
Sites Referenced
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
He is a very smart and capable man. It's easy to talk 'behind the scene' like so many thousands of 'experts' with Ph.D.s, but it's a completely different world out there on the stage, where you need to perform and be 100% sure at all times.
It's so easy to be a philosopher or commentator, but very hard to deliver a real result.
I think that next federal/general election will bring a real capacity on the USA stage.
No he doesn't just my opinion!
I do not know if Obama is the best of all possible candidates for president. However, I do believe that he is a better choice than John McCain.
I guess we all have to just vote our consciences and hope for the best. I did not vote for or like much about Bush, and I believe he has done a terrible job as president. What bother's me most about McCain is that he is slowly aligning his own postition to match that of Bush.
Unfortunately LIVELONGER has a good point in that our two-party system allows the fringes to rule over the rest of us who are more in the middle.
In my view - Even though I know we in the U.S. will never move to a more parliamentarian system, it would be one way to give other voices some influence over our policies. If the two fringes each had their own party, their relative unimportance in the great scheme of things would be immediately apparent.
Yet the fringes need to keep our apartheid system going because it is the only way they can appear larger than they really are. Ours is a system where the extremely small but vocal minority wags the larger dog.
I see absolutlely no reason why religious conservatives and extreme left wingers should have any freat influence at all over the two major parties, other than the parties themselves are too afraid to strike a new political pose.
Of course, to me that means the vast majority of people in this country remain forever relegated to making the "lesser of two evils" choice in national politics.
Shame on them for fooling us, and shame on us for always being fooled.
he does have what nit takes you just hating! stop hating on black people bitch F**k you
livelonger says:
2 years ago
Even bright, reasonable candidates like Obama & Clinton have to avoid looking too "fringe" and unfortunately in a country like ours, that means looking hawkish enough to avoid being painted a wimp.