As the Democratic convention starts today, I need to take issue with some recent Obama claims on foreign pollicy.
Comparing Russian Invasion of Georgia with Iraq
Obama was recently quoted saying "We've got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies. They can't charge into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by example on that point."
This is a not-so-subtle reference to the 2003 operations to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a war criminal whom, without provocation, invaded Kuwait and Iran and used poison gas against civilian Kurds and Iranians. He was offering financial incentives to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers against Israeli civilians. The end of the first Gulf War resulted in a ceasefire, not a peace treaty; there were terms to that ceasefire, which Hussein materially violated. Hussein disregarded the terms of 17 UN resolutions and bought off Russia, China, France, and Germany with sweetheart trade deals. In 1998, Hussein threw out UN inspectors for WMD compliance. Hussein attempted to assassinate former President Bush during a visit to Kuwait. Hussein had Iraqi operatives in the US whom were intercepted by federal intelligence. Hussein had an undeniable "shake-and-bake" WMD capacity, meaning he had the know-how, the underlying infrastructure, and the motive. We also had to maintain indefinitely no-fly zones to protect Kurds and Shiites from yet additional genocidal attacks.
There are no doubt issues with the National Intelligence estimate--something Barack Obama did not have access to at the time--although it seems consistent with past estimates and other foreign intelligence estimates (including the French, whom opposed the Iraq operation). This is not to say I agree with how the nature of the operations or how Iraq was administered after Hussein's overthrow.
But the point here is that the circumstances between the invasion of Iraq and Russia's recent unprovoked invasion of Georgia. The trigger point seemed to be rebel attacks from one of the breakaway provinces on Georgia which led to a Georgian crackdown on the breakaway province. It was obvious from the hair-trigger response, nature and extent of the Russian invasion that it had been planned all along, only waiting for some excuse, like the Georgian crackdown, to be put into action.
Barack's comparison is manifestly absurd. Georgia is a democracy and is not a destabilizing regional threat. Russia did not bring its case as the US did, before the UN Security Council, or bring up resolutions before the UN General Assembly. There is no evidence that Georgia has attempted to assassinate Russian leaders or meddle in Russian internal affairs. Russia violated Georgian sovereign territory and did not restrict its invasion to the breakaway province, but also seized the other breakaway province and invaded Georgia proper.
The fact is, Barack Obama is engaging in the blame-America-first rhetoric of reactionary liberalism. He also implies an excuse, which is a rather condescending view of Russia, that Russia can be excused because it doesn't know any better and must rely on the example of the United States to figure out how to be a responsible nation. We know what all of this posturing is really all about: Russia is furious over the fact the West has backed the independence of Kosovo, which Russia's ally Serbia considers part of its territory; Russia is unhappy about Georgia and the Ukraine on the membership path of NATO; Russia is unhappy with the idea of an American missile base in Poland. Georgia is being used as a scapegoat, an implicit warning to the West, and an example to its other former East European colonies.
Casting international relations in terms of interpersonal dynamics, an inability to promote American interests in Europe and Asia, and superficial analyses of international disputes do not make for the judgment Americans need in their next President.
Promoting Investment in China vs. the USA?
Barack Obama was recently quoted as follows: "Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business you're starting to think, 'Beijing looks like a pretty good option.' "
Oh my God! I suggest that the McCain campaign run a relevant ad in every Midwestern state, including Ohio and Michigan. After all this campaign propaganda about punishing companies that export jobs, Obama is basically telling those same companies they are idiots for not investing more in China vs. the US! I think Obama is really intending to push his make-work infrastructure boondoggles. Maybe if Obama at Harvard Law School took more courses in business and tax law vs. "Victimization 101" and "Picking Liberal Activist Judges", he would recognize the best way to boost American business expansion and hiring is to minimize the government footprint on business and lower the business tax rate, which is uncompetitive among our trading partners.
But more to the point, Barack Obama: as usual, you seem to want to look at the symbolic picture of China they intentionally are trying to project vs. the reality. They had to all but shut down their local economy in Beijing during the Games in order to clear the skies. The difference between the have's and the have-not's in China is stark and causing some internal problems. They have factories operating on razor-thin margins that were not built with the idea of a global slowdown, as we are now experiencing.
There is a lot to be said in favor of improving America's infrastructure given bad roads, collapsing bridges and levees, archaic city pipes, and an aging power grid. But we have competing demands on our tax revenues and we shouldn't be trying to emulate gold-plated infrastructures used primarily for propaganda purposes.
The Recent Working Agreement between US and Iraq
For the past few months, Obama has been trying in laughably absurd ways to claim that McCain is taking his lead on Afghanistan, Iraq, and the like. There is no doubt, given the approaching Iraq elections and an expiring Iraq-US agreement, that Al Maliki needs to posture himself, as Iraq's leader, demanding a small, disappearing American occupier footprint in Iraq. That Barack Obama has put forward a 16-month plan has helped Al Maliki use the American election for negotiating leverage against the Bush Administration.
But Democrats' trying to portray al Maliki's "endorsement" of Obama's plan as an Iraqi endorsement is frankly intellectually dishonest. A key issue in Iraqi stability is a fragile sectarian peace between the majority Shiites and the minority Sunnis. The US has been the trusted broker, particularly by the Sunnis, whom are still wary about ties between the majority Shiite government and militias. A number of Sunni tribesmen, part of the coalition against Al Qaeda, are still being funded by the US and have not absorbed into the Iraq army or police.
There's also been a false argument by the Democrats whom are trying to save face in their on-the-record refusal to support the surge by attributing the military and political progress during the surge to an "independent" preexisting Sunni awakening. This ignores existing US military anti-insurgent policies, which, for example, Gen. Petraeus applied in Mosul after the invasion. Even if a coalition between US forces and Sunni tribal leaders chased out Al Qaeda, that did not address Sunni concerns over Shiite militias, lack of meaningful power sharing in the Iraq government, and fears of being shut out of a proportionate amount of oil revenues. The surge policy enabled US forces to consolidate control over liberated areas and to take the offense against insurgents, outlaw militias, and residual terrorists in Iraq.
In fact, President Bush has been drawing down combat troops to around pre-surge levels while continuing to maintain the lowest level of casualties during the occupation. As the long-time efforts to reach critical masses in the Iraq military and police have begun to take root and those organizations have proven their mettle taking an increasingly frontal role (with US troops in backup) in confronting terrorists, insurgents, and rogue militia, the Iraqis are increasing their sense of self-reliance.
The term "time horizons" vs. timetables simply refers to the fact that the US may be needed to shore up Iraq forces in the event of unexpected challenges, such as a large influx of terrorists seeking to exploit an American withdrawal or an uptick in sectarian issues.
Barack Obama is just trying to escape moral responsibility for advocating a unilateral withdrawal in 2007, despite ongoing military and civilian casualties and Al Qaeda much more of a factor throughout Iraq. I myself would not have approached the situation in Iraq as Bush did, and I find it very peculiar since Bush had derided the whole concept of nation-building heading into his initial election--and knew an invasion of Iraq would mean just that. But, just as a gift shop makes clear, "you break it--you own it". In other words, we had a moral obligation to leave a stable Iraq once we invaded it. I believe that Bush and the Pentagon miscalculated the manpower necessary to stabilize post-invasion Iraq, and we spent much of the next 3 to 4 years failing to correct that problem, despite John McCain's best efforts to push the footprint issue.
The fact is--Barack Obama lacked the necessary judgment: he was unwilling to listen to generals on the ground, like General Petraeus, explain what resources were necessary for the mission to succeed. He simply wanted to pick up his toys and leave and let someone else worry about the mess he left behind. That's not leadership. If we had let politicians micromanage military operations, the Revolutionary War would not have won independence following Gen. Washington's defeats, and the Civil War would have ended at Bull Run.
The abandonment of an ally would not have been lost on our other allies, including NATO and Israel.
Barack Obama's disingenuous attempts to exploit the hard-won fruits of an unpopular surge policy he never conceived nor supported and then claim leadership of the ensuing withdrawal with honor made possible takes unmitigated chutzpah.
