Barack Obama’s foreign policy problem
Yesterday, I had a conversation with Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, former spokesman for Vice President Cheney and director of public relations for the Central Intelligence Agency. We talked mostly about national security and the Democrats.
It is looking increasingly clear that Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. Two things really struck me in my discussion with Mrs. Dyck. The first is that we may have, depending on the GOP candidate, a real contrast on national security experience and perspective. Second, it is likely that the Democrats are going to be torqued up by the disconnect between reality (on the ground in Iraq and responsible policy) and what a Democratic candidate would advocate.
Read on.
Let’s take the first point. Mrs. Dyck pointed out that Obama talks about meeting with Iran, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. When Obama said that he would meet with Iran, he overreacted soon after and discussed the possibility of a limited invasion of Pakistan. Mrs. Dyck said, “It was an amateurish enough error to earn Obama a rather embarrassing schooling from the much more seasoned Sen. Biden. Yet, rather shockingly, he said it again on Saturday.”
There are really two things to note here. The first is that the ideas are silly, and the second is that his over-reaction that projects a lack of leadership. How will that appear in the context of events like yesterday’s incident with Iranian gunships in the Straits of Hormuz. In this dangerous and uncertain world, there will be other opportunities for Obama to demonstrate his inexperience.
Dyck said:
So not only did he exhibit a serious deficiency in judgment the first time round. It seems he still has not learned his lesson. The key here is Obamas judgment and that is something that will be scrutinized in the upcoming months. If his Pakistan policy is any indicator, he has one of two problemshe either lacks the experience to have good judgment or he just lacks judgment in the national security arena.
The second point is that Democratic base expectations will be in conflict with reality, as we have seen in the anger involving troop levels in Iraq. Obama supports much higher levels of troops than the base realizes, but it has fetishized the initial Iraq vote over any current reality. (Note that as the surge succeeds, the Democrats are retreating to the position that it was wrong to go into Iraq at all) As Obama becomes the leader of the Democratic Party, his statements will have to get more responsible, which will anger the base even more.
Right now, the press is in love with Barack Obama. But soon, he is going to be confronted with real questions. He will need answers. He isn’t equipped to give real answers in some cases. In other cases, his answers are irresponsible and deeply unsatisfying to the general election electorate. In other cases, his base will be enraged. This is one set of issues where Obama is quite vulnerable.
Originaly from Source
Osama bin Laden — and the eventuality of his capture — does not matter one whit. Not to us, and not to the world.
I really don’t have the time or the patience to expand on this more than you see here at the present moment. If there’s enough commentary — especially of the naively simplistic kind — I may say more about it, but there’s really no need.
FACT 1: Osama bin Laden does not matter one whit to the security of the United States or of our allies. The movement he champions does, of course — very much, in fact — but he, as a man, does not.
Read on.
As any person with experience in this area will tell you, removing a figurehead — or even an actual leader — does little or nothing to stop (or even to slow down) a terrorist, insurgent, or militant cell or organization. As I’ve personally seen, both as a journalist and in another capacity, terror cells are like the mythic Hydra. Cut off the head, and several more will simply pop up to take its place. There are ALWAYS successors waiting in the wings to claim the slain leader as a martyr, step up recruiting, and continue operations. What must be done to defeat terror networks and organizations is to attack the body and to attack the sources of their sustenance — i.e., to limit their pools of recruits, and to kill or capture those already doing the dirty work.
FACT 2: Osama bin Laden is not even a large enough symbol in our War on Terror to be worth another mention, let alone a concerted effort — monitored directly by the President — to find and eliminate him. 9/11 took place, with his funding and with the planning of his lieutenants. That’s great; it’s the network that matters, not the man. For further evidence, what has OBL been able to accomplish since the 9/11 attacks, which he claimed responsibility for but did not actually take physical part in? Outside of releasing a few video tapes, absolutely nothing. He’s impotent, and poses no threat to the US that is any greater than the sum of al Qaeda’s fighters, who are loyal not to him, but to the radical Islamist ideology of death and destruction.
Killing or capturing Osama bin Laden would make headlines — for a few days. If a Democrat was President, we’d be told that the War on Terror was now over, and that we could feel free to forget about the threat of (don’t say “Islamist”!) terrorism and go back to the neurotic class warfare that is the bread and butter of Democratic governance. If a Republican were president at the time of capture, we would be reminded that it took years, that we really weren’t any safer, and that we made bin Laden what he was in the first place anyway.
Regardless, al Qaeda would continue to exist, and to be as strong as ever, and there would be no meaningful benefit to the US from capturing one man who is as ineffective and worthless as ever at the present time, anyway. The War on Terror isn’t just “not just about one man” — it’s not about that one man at all. What more evidence do we need, besides OBL’s own impotence since 9/11, than the fact that the only time he is ever mentioned — beyond the occasional release of another worthless audio or video tape — is when Democrats who are as ignorant as can be of the true scope and importance of the GWOT pull his name back out again to beat like a dead horse in an attempt to score political points?
Originaly from Source
Its a msg regarding price hike in rice
I am Nafees Imtiaz from Bangladesh. You all know that our coubntry man severely attackted with SIDR, cyclone. So our crop production hampered and so we have shortage of rice. Our neighbour country increase the price of rice crop on immediate effect. Should they do it??? Now we r trying to import rice from Vietnam. Inshallah we will overcome these problem with the grace of almighty Allah.
Nafees Imtiaz Islam
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Originaly from Source