Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Why Obama Is Wrong

What is wrong with Norman Rockwell?

Senator Obama has had the experience of growing up poor and interacting with the "less than affluent" of foreign countries - many of whom are actually relatives. Senator McCain has had the experience of growing up in well-to-do circumstances, living off the public largess, and only having ... shall we say, less than cordial ... interactions with people in foreign nations. He was born in Panama - on a military installation in the American-controlled Canal Zone. McCain has had long experience in the Senate, but his resume is about 1" deep, and his analytical prowess, like George Bush's, is "checking his gut" to make decisions. Obama has had only 4 years in the Senate, although more in the Illinois State legislature, so his experience is not as "broad" but it is deep. He thinks a lot about issues and digs deep into the implications, so he supported the Afghanistan war, but not the Iraq war. Obama has been a teacher, a community organizer, lawyer, writer and editor. Compare McCain's memoirs - all written with Mark Salter - to Obama's, all written by himself and you can get a real sense of the difference in the depth of their thought processes.

Oh, by the way, I think the last two truly qualified first-term candidates for President were Al Gore and George Bush, Sr. Gore had his experience as both Senator and Vice President, and George Senior had vast experience as Congressman, Ambassador and CIA Chief. He was my pick in 1980.

May I then submit that I suspect there are at least 10 million Americans who would be qualified by your standards. Why is this an issue? If a candidate makes it to this point he/she either has a clue or bought one along the way.

Of that 10 million I wonder how many are beholden to lobbyists?

At the risk of resuming a conversation that was decicedly off topic, I want to give this thread a bump and see if we are willing to flesh out the other aspect of Mr. Lind's claims: that Sen. Obama is also wrong about Afghanistan.

Here's an interesting article to start us off: Leaked memo: British envoy says mission in Afghanistan is "doomed"

Those of us who have been following the American strategy in Iraq can more clearly appreciate what "doomed to failure" means: hundreds of billions of dollars spent, thousands of Americans dead, hundreds of thousands of "others" dead, millions displaced, infrastructure destroyed, stature of US in key region obliterated, and our two Presidential candidates declaring "victory" and "success beyond our wildest dreams".

So what say you? Would an "enhanced" campaign (I shudder to say "surge") in Afghanistan result in a similar "victory"? Or is the British Ambassador right, and the dark-skinned American messiah wrong, as Mr. Lind suggested?

Remember Mr. Lind?

The dark skinned Messiah is wrong, and that from a supporter of his candidacy. The good war bad war thing wears pretty thin after a while. A good war takes about a week and has very few casualties. Hopefully the new economic situation at home will force him to wage less war and concentrate more on domestic infrastructure and policy.

Judging from the dearth of responses to the contrary, I am thinking that all us Ranters are in agreement vis-a-vis Sen. Obama's plan for Afghanistan, i.e., it is misguided and potentially disastrous.

Former British Foreign Service officer Rory Stewart weighs in with the same opinion in this guest editorial in the NY Times.


It gives me hope to see these contrary opinions being aired in teh Newspaper of Record. I note with gratitude that they also appear in various conservative organs, as we might well expect a sudden concern for military adventurism to infect our rightward brethren and sistren now that the Most Liberal Senator is about to ascend the ultimate Capitol Steps.

Note that Mr. Stewart calls for a foreign policy that sounds tailor made for an old-school Conservative. If only Mr. Obama really wanted to reach out to conservatives, this would be the perfect opportunity. Alas! I fear he may be more interested in showing those entrenched Armageddonites how tough he can be with the heathens.

So you believe that tracking down and putting out of business the people who planned, funded, and engineered the bombings of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is not a worthy objective?

Right, but once that has been accomplished, what then? Declare "mission accomplished" and leave?

There is the Taliban, of course, co-conspirators after the fact. (Legally speaking (AFAIK), conspiracy to murder and, to a slightly lesser degree, conspiracy to aid and abet a murderer's escape are considered worse offenses than the murder itself.)

There was one interesting option that presented itself early, although probably no longer available... Iran.

As you may recall, they offered to 'make nice' and actually aid us in helping to get rid of the Taliban, whom they despise. Bush's reaction of course was to dis them completely... their reaction after that was even then "OK, so we aren't going to allow you to fly over our territory, but still if one of your fliers gets in trouble, we will provide safe haven" - which, incidentally, we did, and they did.

Could there possibly be any way to reclaim that offer, and would we want to?

I believe it is possible to treat the government of Iran with sufficient respect and good will to entice them to rejoin the world of responsible nations, and I believe it can be done without compromise to U.S. interests in the region or the world at large. I believe their engagement could be of considerable value in resolving radical Islamic fundamentalism as a threat to global security. And I agree that we should take a run at that set of nested goals.

As for the Taliban, creating a solid and legitimate government in Kabul and assisting said government in establishing effective governance is the path to resolution and management of that problem. A nested set of objectives that should have less to do with military engagement than removal of Al Qaeda requires.