Or, as an alternative title "Barack Obama Had it Right (Again)"
There's an excellent diary up on the rec list now concerning Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf and his exploitation of the Bush administration's foreign policy as it focuses so myopically on its "War on Terror." We may sit here and observe that what is happening in Pakistan now is perhaps a predictable consequence of designing a foreign policy in Pakistan that relies solely upon bolstering the existing government against our archetypal mutual enemy off in the mountains at the Pakistan border. We might further believe that the present turmoil - the suspension of democracy, is a logical extension of the militarism we fostered supporting the conflict in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 80s, or an extension of our tacit acceptance of the military rule and spreading of Sharia law under Zia-ul-Haq beginning in '77. However, while we sit here drawing those historical threads I would like to remind us of a discussion we had, here and elsewhere, some three months ago.
As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.
Yesterday Devilstower front-paged Romney's old response to Obama's language on Pakistan, Willard Hearts Dictators. The response (h/t viralvoice) from conservatives was (here's that word again) "predictable"- he want's to attack Pakistan- our ally! talk about all the reckless, inexperienced, irresponsible foreign policy statements- what a joke the Democratic field is with respect to national security!!
It's amusing how nearly everyone who responded to Obama's Wilson Center speech appeared to ignore the paragraph following "we will act."
What was perhaps less predictable than the hypocrisy and insanity of the right was the invective and histrionics of the left. Jerome Armstrong:
I would agree that it it a threshold question: for those inside the beltway, like war proponants Pollock and O'Hanlon, who still think we can win in Iraq, it's a matter of showing you are not a weak Democrat; but for progressive Democrats that want a more peaceful leadership in the world shown by our next President, it fails the threshold of getting us out of picking fights in the mid-east, and discarding the Bush doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive attacks. If a unilateral pre-emptive strategy of attacking a 'target' is the doctrine, then why isn't Saudi Arabia, where Al Qaeda began and home to most of the 9/11 terrorists, also a potential target? The unilateral pre-emptive doctrine is profoundly un-american and anti-diplomatic in both its actions and ramifications.
The one thing this has done for Obama, is put him in the center, not Clinton, of the dialogue over what's going to happen next in the middle-east, and everyone is going to be reacting to his positions. For Richardson, who also didn't vote for the war, it's an opening to become the one candidate who did not vote for sending troops into Iraq and will pull completely out. For Edwards, it's an opportunity to further differentiate himself to the left of Obama. If this doesn't give the opening that Bill Richardson and John Edwards were looking for to criticize Obama directly, I don't know what does. Heck, even Clinton has the opportunity to move to the left of Obama over the issue of a the US launching a unilateral pre-emptive attack inside Pakistan. Because if Pakistan is game, why isn't Saudi Arabia as well?
While the majority of respondents to Meteor Blades' poll supported Obama's statements, here at DailyKos there were a number of views posted that were quit sympathetic with Armstrong's take:
And, in the end, the other Democratic presidential candidates came out presenting a take on Obama's speech that was far too similar to the attacks of the Right.
Chris Dodd:
My view was when you raise -- issues are being raised about Pakistan, understand that while General Musharraf is no Thomas Jefferson, he may be the only thing that stands between us and having an Islamic fundamentalist state in that country. And so what I’d like to see him change -- the reality is if we lose him, then what we face is an alternative that could be a lot worse for our country.
I think it’s highly responsible -- or irresponsible for people who are running for the presidency and seek that office to suggest we may be willing unilaterally to invade a nation here who we’re trying to get to be more cooperative with us in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Hillary Clinton:
Well, I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals. And it may well be that the strategy we have to pursue on the basis of actionable intelligence -- but remember, we’ve had some real difficult experiences with actionable intelligence -- might lead to a certain action.
But I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists who are in bed with al Qaeda and Taliban. And remember, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The last thing we want is to have al Qaeda-like followers in charge of Pakistan and having access to nuclear weapons.
So you can think big, but remember, you shouldn’t always say everything you think if you’re running for president, because it has consequences across the world. And we don’t need that right now.
"My international experience tells me that we should address this problem with tough diplomacy with General Musharraf first, leaving the military as a last resort. It is important to reach out to moderate Muslim states and allies to ensure we do not unnecessarily inflame the Muslim world," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, another 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.
Our other candidates either suggested that Musharraf should not be repudiated because of our alliance with Pakistan (i.e. military strategy trumps democratic ideals) or rather implied that Obama was not strictly wrong but far too vocal in his being right. We see where that sort of tacit acceptance gets us now. Between Dodd and Richardson I can look back on these pompous declarations of foreign relations experience and diplomatic credentials and consider them perhaps more a detriment than a strength, particularly when that experience leads one to (falsely) portray Pakistan as a bipolar state balanced between a fragile Musharraf and Islamic extremists. While Edwards later made statements that were broadly similar to Obama's position, at the time he too criticized Obama's speech, misinterpreting that Obama was proposing the movement of ground troops into the country.
Three months ago, our other candidates and our fellows in the leftist blogosphere defiantly opposed an in-depth review of our foreign policy with respect to Pakistan. Three months later- here we are.
