http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070808/OPINION/708080384/-1/LOCAL17The conventional thinking -- especially in Washington -- is that Barack Obama is flunking foreign policy. But this is one case where conventional thinking may not be that well thought out.
Yes, we've had a glimpse of the world according to Obama. And it doesn't look half bad.
Not the world itself, which is as dangerous and unpredictable as ever -- full of petty tyrants, enemies posing as friends, and rogue states in search of nuclear weapons.
I'm talking about the worldview of the junior senator from Illinois. What seemed like a rookie mistake -- suggesting that, as president, he'd meet with dictators from countries such as Cuba, Iran or North Korea -- may wind up serving Obama well.
First, it let him draw a distinction between himself and the front-runner. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped the cause when she blasted Obama's comments as "irresponsible and frankly naive."
That's baby boomer code for "young and immature." Obama, who is 46, stresses that he's of a different generation than his opponents. This was Clinton pushing back. She might as well have sent the whippersnapper to his room without dessert.
But the idea of talking to rogue states such as Iran and Syria has been suggested before, most recently by the Iraq Study Group. Many Americans will embrace Obama's point -- that presidents shouldn't just meet with people who always agree with them and tell them what they want to hear.
The Washington establishment may scoff at that message, but I have a hunch it'll play well in Middle America.
Second, Obama's foray into foreign policy gave him a chance to continue the conversation and provide specifics. Last week, in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, he urged exiting Iraq and moving "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Obama is wrong about leaving Iraq before the job is done but right about not losing sight of the goal of ferreting out terrorists elsewhere. Yet the candidate took fire from both parties for pledging that, if elected president, he would act on intelligence about "high-value terrorist targets" within Pakistan.
The media made it sound as if Obama was ready to launch a full-scale invasion of Pakistan. Pundits and politicians rushed to defend a country that Washington treats as an ally in the war on terror.
Rudy Giuliani suggested that Obama probably wished he could rephrase his remarks to be more accommodating of Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Mitt Romney said Obama was "confused as to who are our friends and who are our enemies." John McCain called Obama's remarks "kind of typical of his naivete." And Clinton couldn't resist scolding Obama again, insisting that how we capture or kill bin Laden or his lieutenants "should not be telegraphed."
But Obama wasn't hatching an invasion. He was talking about going into Pakistan if our military was in hot pursuit of "high-value terrorist targets."
There is no target of higher value than Osama bin Laden, and our intelligence agencies say that he's in the remote tribal areas of western Pakistan. Most Americans would probably agree that this is one person we have the right to pursue to the ends of the Earth. That includes going into Pakistan.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(218 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
