Sen. Barack Obama is trying to balance calls for diplomacy with warlike statements.
In Monday's Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina, Obama sounded dovish. "Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire," he said. "And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward."
Yet some of Obama's past statements seem less evocative of détente and more connected to the bellicose beliefs that brought us the Cuban Missile Crisis.
"America must urgently begin deploying from Iraq and take the fight more effectively to the enemy's home by destroying al-Qaida's leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border, eliminating their command and control networks and disrupting their funding," he said earlier this month.
Ralph Peters, a military-affairs columnist, disparaged this idea. "Sure, we can invade Pakistan," Peters told FrontPage magazine. "Of course, we'll need a draft to round up enough troops. And we'll have to kill, as a minimum, a few hundred thousand Pathan tribesmen and their families, and we'll have to remain as an occupier for many years. Oh, and Pakistan's got nuclear weapons and it's already torn by civil strife."
Peters called Obama's hawkishness on Central Asia "a classic example of the fateful mix of hubris and naivety on Capitol Hill." Equally as bad is the mix of looking like a dove while keeping the feathers of a hawk.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 3)
1. I think this is where the intellectual capacity and his fore-sight of Obama is better than the backward change Sen. Clinton is proposing. The world in which we live today is very different from what we knew ten years ago. This is what Obama said before the war and he has done it again by offering a new way of thinking that it is a good idea to talk with those who disagree with you. What is the most important aspect of he president job?.
Here are few bench marks that will help you:
If you are old enough to remember, in the eighties, the Palestinians were fighting with rocks and sticks. Today, they are making deadly weapons and even missiles. The short man from North Korea has successfully tested over 7 long range missiles. Very soon he will have a nuclear bomb. Iran and China are secretly building missiles to destroy our satellite systems in space. China has repeatedly successfully tested their technology. In about a year Iran will have nuclear bomb.
The most important task any American president faces today is how to deal with these small minded dictators. In their countries, they are like gods and they do not give a damn whether an American president speaks to them or not. One year is too much time. We can not afford to have a nuclear Iran. You can send Sec. Rice a million times to nicely dress in red, smile and to wave her hand a million times - you are not going to get anything done. By the time if Sen. Clinton is elected president and sends Albright to go on the plane and wave her hands like Sec. Rice for a complete year while she sits in D.C. fighting Republicans, it will be too late. I was very pleased to for the first time hear clarity on how to deal with the problems we now have in our changed world come from Obama.
President Bush refused to meet with the most respected human being alive today (Nelson Mandela) because Mr. Mandela, a visionary man said the invasion of Iraq was a grave mistake. How noble it would have looked if President Bush met with Mr. Mandela when he visited South Africa.
I hope you understand the reason why we now desperately need change instead of the same old, same old ideological thinking that is taking us backward
Mark at 9:59PM on Jul 24th 2007
2. Hillary is closer to the truth on this. Let the career diplomats get together with the enemy first. The leaders can then meet on good terms to sign the agreement. Or not as the case may be.
Steve Bonomo at 6:17PM on Jul 24th 2007
3. Obama yet again shows his in-experience while Hillary shows her experience. Like her or not, Hillary is a much better leader to the country than Obama at this time.
Patrick at 6:27PM on Jul 24th 2007
4. actually this ralph peters guy sounds like dove .. can't go after the baddies when the baddies possess nuclear weapons? what kind of war on terror is this? ralph peters probably wants osama to win ..
alexkreuz at 8:23PM on Jul 24th 2007
5. ^how can u defend Obama exactly? I am a strong liberal and democrat and hate what Bush is doing. But Hillary is more experienced. The President cannot just go in and talk with all the enemies. It needs to be under the right conditions. If Obama would just go in he would be used to stir up more anti-american sentiment. Hillary has the experience on foreign policy and right now, in the world today, we need as much experience as we can get. She didn't say she wouldn't meet with them in her 1st year, she just said she won't make any promises. Hey wait, a politician not promising something they can't fulfill, wow, who is the change candidate here? sorry..i digress...Hillary is smart in saying she would send diplomats 1st such as the secretary of state to meet with these countries. You have to be prepared, Hillary favors dipolomacy much more than Bush ever did or ever will, but diplomacy doesn't mean rushing into a meeting that could jeopardize the U.S. In fact this is about more than just Hillary's experience, its also about her knowledge and responsibility. Hillary shined last night in the debate. She was the star. She had the detailed answers and the smart answers. She should be the president.(with Obama as VP)
Patrick at 11:14PM on Jul 24th 2007
6. It was implicit in Obama's response that he would meet appropriately with the leaders. Obama is deliberative and would do nothing imprudent. To assume otherwise is just following Hillary's lead. It is certain that she knew what he meant and that her response was calculated to get the reaction that it has. Actually,in my opinion, her response showed a touch of Bush's arrogance...
JPS at 1:06AM on Jul 25th 2007
7. "Obama's Foreign Policy Needs Work."
Really? Wow. And here I was thinking that the current foreign policy (in play) as the one needing work.
You guys are smart.
vegastracon at 2:57AM on Jul 25th 2007
8. JPS: it was not implicit. To promise to meet with leader in 1 year is a stretch. It would be almost impossible to responsibly meet with all those leaders in 1 year.
And of course any foreign policy would be better than Bush's, but Obama showed his inexperience. He was naive.
Patrick at 9:12AM on Jul 25th 2007
9. okay...! what is exactly naive about attempting to speak with your enemies. do the words, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer," and "it is better to know thy enemy than to know thyself" strike a cord with anyone? everyone who continuously says that Barack Obama's response was naive is doing absolutely nothing than regurgitating what Hillary Clinton said. It shows an lack of thought upon the individual. It is clear that Barack Obama's new way forward is groundbreaking. The methods of the past are obsolete and Hillary Clinton demonstrated her old-fashion and outdated ways of thinking. Too much experience is what is wrong with politicians today. I'm am sure part of America losing the war in Iraq is because we do not know our enemy. It is clear Hillary Clinton has no intentions of meeting the adversaries of America to resolve conflict. She only suggests what she would do if she was face with the choice - a suggestion that I actually think is unfavorable.
y8m8c8 at 11:09AM on Jul 25th 2007
10. oh...I get it! How could I have been so foolish...? When the answer of a fresh politician doesn't coincide with the answers of seasoned political veterans whose methodical ideas seems to perpetuate an unsuccessful and unchanging cycle of diplomacy in a rapidly changing world, clearly that fresh politician isn't experienced or exposed enough to the old ways of thought. Oh gee, and here I was hoping for a new kind of politics. If we are to not change, let us just change the law so that we may re-elect Bush.
y8m8c8 at 3:06PM on Jul 25th 2007
11. The difference between Obama and Hillary is finally out in the open. Hillary belongs to the old school of politicians who want to maintain status quo where their ego or legacy runs higher than the interest of a nation.
If America, the world leader will not talk to its enemies as a policy, then should Israel talk to palestine? In Sudan should the Southerners talk to the Notherners?
The bad guys care less whether you give them a cold shoulder and for decades sanctions have not worked. Talking down on them and issuing threats from Washington has not worked either. Hillary stand leaves one option "Quiet diplomacy that drags forever as things get worse or the GUN.
Barak Obama is making a break from this tired old tradition. We need a fresh start, new leadership, new ideas and of course prudence.
daniel at 12:41PM on Jul 25th 2007
12. I am very confused when I read the polls that rate Hillary vs Obamas position on Foreign Affairs. On one poll I read that most Americans support Hillary. But then on the opposite poll, most americans agree with Obama that it is right to meet with the leaders of countries we are in conflict with. Huh, I dont get this, If you are going to support one over the other, then you should also support their views. The polls are conflicting. Search yourself America, why are you really supporting Hillary.
kim F at 2:48PM on Jul 25th 2007
13. I certainly agree with Daniel. America is no longer the moral, economic, medical, nor education leader of the world. Our arrogance as a nation and our desire to live in the past are failing us. We need fresh leadership and fresh ideas. The America is heading for an ecological, economic, and social train reck. We need someone who realizes the track is running out, it's time for a new direction. It's time for Obama.
gospelrydr at 3:13PM on Jul 25th 2007
14. As the comments state, they affirm what everyone should realize...that Hilary Clinton will maintain the status quo of the individuals in power. This nation is ready for FRESH ideas and common sense diplomacy- something that Obama appears to be able to deliver.
Magdalena at 2:56PM on Jul 25th 2007
15. Obama did not say that he would rush into a meeting, he simply said he would meet with them. Hillary implied that Obama would rush into a meeting. The power of suggestion is very effective with weak minds. Hillary knows that, Hillary used it. And from what I am reading. It worked.
kim F at 2:57PM on Jul 25th 2007