Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Obama’s foreign policy

Sen. Barack Obama gave a speech on foreign policy to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Just file it for now, but note the important fact that there is nothing ground-breaking in it, no "come home" America, and such. Nice touch about hbis father at the end.

Discussions - 4 Comments

"Crackhead" Barack Hussein Obama also has given talks before the treasonous AIPAC saying that he wants to "pop some caps" into Iran.

The parts of it which are not gibberish are Great Society liberalism on a global scale. His adoration of the father who deserted him is slightly creepy. He comes across as a black version of "Real Conservative", obsessed with race and his forefathers and their traditions. Would his admirers here care to say what it is they find so wonderful about him?

Two points about this speech that caught my attention.

First, although he advocates a phased withdrawal of U. S. forces from Iraq, he wants to increase U. S. troops in Afghanistan and to increase U. S. ground forces overall (65,000 Army, 27,000 Marines). That increase, he said, is his response to the demonstrated "consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland." This strikes me as cold comfort to the left wing of his party, which seems to be backing his candidacy, against Senator Clinton.

Second, he claims that a phased withdrawal of combat forces, "with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008," will "change the political dynamic in Iraq" by forcing the Iraqi government to meet "a series of well-defined benchmarks necessary to reach a political settlement." I am not entirely sure that the way to stop insurgents is to put pressure on a feeble state, but two paragraphs later comes an astonishing remark: "Our interests are best served when people and governments from Jerusalem and Amman to Damascus and Tehran understand that America will stand with our friends, work hard to build a peaceful Middle East, and refuse to cede the future of the region to those who seek perpetual conflict and instability." I am sure that this is so, but I am having trouble finding any logical connection between it and the phased withdrawal notion that almost immediately precedes it. Compared with the forces that are out to destroy the Maliki government and to expel the U. S. from Iraq, is the Maliki government a friend with whom we will stand? Are not the Sadrists, al Qaedists, Baathists, and other enemies of that government those who seek perpetual conflict and instability--at least, until such time as one of them wins decisively?

To make the connection, he would need to show why Maliki's government is the real impediment to a peaceful settlement in the country. He doesn't do that.

Obama is a standard leftist who is smart enough to use deodorant. The substantive differences between him and Hillary, or Edwards, or George McGovern, could fit into a thimble.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: