Home >> United States & Canada >> Elections & Politics

     Email   Print 

Ten Reasons to Be Concerned about Obama’s Stance on National Security

Ryan Mauro - 10/12/2008

Due to the recent economic crisis and a McCain campaign knocked off kilter, Sen. Barack Obama is becoming more and more the presidential candidate the experts predict to win the election. Such a victory would be unprecedented but not due to his race. It will be unprecedented in that never before has America embraced a candidate with such little experience and ill-defined views. Those views which he does profess represent a naïve break from reality, a poorly thought-out exercise in moral equivalence, and a repetition of policies and philosophies with long debunked credibility.

There's a reason why Sen. Obama loses the issue of foreign policy and national security to Sen. McCain by a wide margin - Americans have seen his ideas attempted throughout history and the decades it takes to fix their negative effect on American national security. Obama's policies do not represent change, but rather an exhaustively rehearsed play where when the final curtain is dropped, the survival of those who struggle for freedom in the Middle East and elsewhere is in question, and America finds its geopolitical strength undermined.

Sure, like past presidents, Obama will loudly proclaim that America disagrees with the actions of dictators to sponsor terrorism and oppress its freedom-desiring citizens, offering the typical carrots that he says will convince our irrational enemies to act rational, but diplomacy and rhetoric is not a strategy. Diplomacy is a tool to implement strategy. Diplomacy without strategy is an anti-American dictator's favorite unintended gift from the U.S., allowing him to talk the talk while not walking the walk. It is here where Obama, like President Bush, falls into the trap of countries like Iran. Despite every attempt at robust diplomacy and every combination of carrots and sticks, Iran continues to harbor terrorists, help kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, pursue nuclear weapons, and talk about the extinction of Israel. On this topic, Obama offers more of the same, and we've seen only negative consequences from it.

There are ten major reasons Americans should question Obama on national security, ranging from his foreign policy, to his own personal judgment.

1. A disastrous policy on Iraq.

Obama's main argument for his credibility on Iraq is that he opposed the initiation of the war. While most Americans view this war as a mistake, this is due to the high cost involved which is largely due to mismanagement of the conflict - mismanagement that Obama was unable to even recognize in July 2004, saying "There's not much difference between my position on the war or George Bush's position at this stage." While Sen. McCain was getting slammed by his Republican colleagues for voicing his undeniably accurate foresight about the conflict's mismanagement, and most importantly, how to rectify it, Obama was advocating the failed Bush position.

Furthermore, Obama opposed the "surge" which has managed to stunningly turn-around the war in Iraq - successes which he denied against all available evidence until recently, and a successful strategy he unbelievably says he'd still oppose. This presents us with a clear example of Obama's inability to admit when he's wrong, rectify his mistakes, and to put the national security of the U.S. and the world above his own narrow-mindedness, partisanship, and political campaigns. The "surge" is likely the greatest example of Obama's inability to act as a commander-in-chief and effective solver of foreign policy problems.

Two more points bear mentioning. While Obama lambasted Sen. Hillary Clinton for her vote for the Iraq War Resolution, Obama had previously stated in 2004 that he was unsure how he would have voted if he was in the Senate. In fact, Obama even stated in 2004 that his opposition to the war didn't take into account the intelligence that the Congress had access to, saying "perhaps the reason I thought [the war] was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence," something he doesn't mention when he boasts about his foresight. While Obama claims he doubted the credibility of the intelligence used in making the decision for the war, voters must know he didn't even have such access at the time.

And finally, and most importantly, Obama's Iraq policy would be a disaster for the U.S. and for the region, and it is understandable why many Iraqis live in fear of an Obama presidency. Voters must know that had the U.S. withdrawn all combat forces when Obama had wanted, the surge and subsequent near-victory in the war would not have taken place, and Iraq would have descended into a bloody abyss of genocide, Iranian imperialism, and terrorist bases that would help execute the next 9/11.

Today, Obama advocates the same withdrawal, and due to the "surge," there is some possibility that these negative repercussions of a withdrawal can be reduced, but the strong probability remains that Obama's actions will reverse the gains of the past two years, and once again allow the ambitions of Iran and the terrorists to be actualized, and the aspirations of the Iraqi people to safely live in freedom to be dashed. The negative affect of Obama's policy on the lives of the American, as well as the Iraqi, people is hard to put into words. It is tempting to end a war, but such a policy will only elongate the war as a whole, and American soldiers will again have to enter Iraq under more costly and dangerous conditions.

2. A wishful thinking Iran policy

While the Iranian regime openly talks about the destruction of Israel, denies the Holocaust, supports terrorism and arms, trains, funds, and even dispatches the terrorists who murder U.S. troops and innocent Afghans and Iraqis, Obama is favoring a continuance of the Bush Administration policy of doing nothing. Obama's only policy prescription has been to launch top-level, face-to-face meetings between the U.S. president and the top leader of Iran (and other rogue states). Obama does not explain why current negotiations by lower-level staff members are not working (and why his will), and why simply flattering the regime with a presidential meeting will change their intentions. He doesn't explain the goal of the strategy, or put forth a deal that can be made with the regime, or explain why he has any faith that the Iranians can even be trusted to hold up their part of a deal. In short, Obama has no policy toward Iran besides, "let's talk it out." It is no wonder that many Iranians, just like their Iraqi neighbors, probably live in fear of an Obama presidency.

Unfortunately for the U.S., Iranian people, and all those whose lives are threatened by Iranian-backed terrorists, Obama is against even the most basic measures to stop the regime. He opposed - but didn't bother to show up to vote against - a law designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the regime's outfit used to carry out terrorism, as a terrorist organization which enables the U.S. to impose sanctions on them, a bill with wide bipartisan support from people like Sen. Hillary Clinton. If Obama cannot properly define what a "terrorist" is, and isn't even willing to support measures to place sanctions on them, how can he be trusted to stop, or at least contain Iran? The truth is that the mullahs only stand to gain from an Obama presidency, and that does not bode well for the people of the Middle East or the people of the United States.

3. A flawed philosophy

By studying Obama's foreign policy, a seriously flawed philosophy on geopolitics can be seen. There are three parts to this. The first is Obama's moral equivalency. When Russia invaded Georgia, going so far as to occupy the territory of Abkhazia which was not part of the original conflict, Obama's first response was to call for restraint on both sides. By acting as the father of two boys struggling over a video game controller, Obama goes to great lengths to appear as the impartial arbitrator. Of course, Obama condemned Russia's blatant aggression, but this occurred only after harsh criticism from the McCain campaign and all those who marveled at Obama's failure to see black and white, instead choosing only to see grey. Such an outlook is convenient - seeing only grey means the U.S. won't be morally obliged to support the white and oppose the black, and can instead sit on the sidelines trying to offend no one, but that doesn't make people like the Georgians any less victimized, countries like Russia any less emboldened, or America any less threatened.

The second part of Obama's philosophy can be viewed by three simple, if largely unreported, statements he made to David Brooks of The New York Times. He first states that U.S. foreign policy must look "at the root causes of problems and dangers," a frequent phrase used by those who empathize with our enemies' criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, even if disagreeing with their tactics and ideologies. This reflects the mindset that terrorism is an outgrowth from anti-Americanism caused by U.S. foreign policy, dismissing the inherent unreasonableness of radical Islamic ideology. The belief that anger against American policy is the enabler of radical Islam, and therefore U.S. policy must not anger foreign populations, fails to see that radical Islam flourishes largely due to the propaganda machines of non-free countries. These anti-American and pro-extremist attitudes do not emanate from an objective critique of American policy, but of the impartial, twisted take on current events that tyrannical regimes promote. No change in U.S. policy will be accurately represented, and therefore, no attempt by Obama to "address the root causes" will change anything, unless democratic reform is enacted in such countries that break the extremists' blockade on information. However, Obama has said nothing about encouraging such reform, and there is no reason to believe he understands this dynamic.

Obama's second statement in the interview is truly shocking. He states that the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas "need to be compelled to understand that they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims." Stating that these terrorists have "legitimate claims" is unprecedented for any major presidential candidate. Again, Obama overlooks the goals of these groups and seeks to empathize with their grievances against the West. This isn't to say Obama is unpatriotic, anti-American or pro-terrorist, but Obama should be forced to address which of Hamas' and Hezbollah's claims he views are legitimate. There can be no greater question in determining how someone views the world.

The third statement comes when Obama is asked how he could negotiate with the leaders like Ahmadinejad. Obama states, "there are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms." Here, Obama dismisses the idea that there are simply some enemies of the U.S. who are not rational. No, Obama seems to believe, a deal can be struck with anyone. Common interests that will alleviate hostilities can always be determined. This shows Obama has a fundamental misunderstanding of radical Islam and radical ideologies as a whole. Their actions are not determined by politics or money, but by an uncompromising worldview that does not tolerate any dissenting thought. When Ahmadinejad says he is trying to hasten the arrival of the Hidden Imam, who will only come when the infidels and true Muslims go to war and the Imam will then destroy the infidels despite their superior power, no rationality, deal-making, or deterrence will work. The Brooks interview is the most important of this election, and all readers seeking to understand how Obama views the world, through all the rhetoric and "plans" absent of detail, must read it.

4. Wrong on Virtually Every Other Foreign Policy Issue

Sen. Obama isn't just wrong on the top foreign policy issues of Iraq, Iran and Russia, but also on virtually every other one that comes to mind. His strongest position is on Pakistan, where he advocates launching strikes on terrorists identified in that country if the government is unable or unwilling to go after them. This is an honorable position, although openly stating such an intention has extremely negative diplomatic repercussions and threatens the stability of the Pakistani government, which could allow radical Muslims to have an even greater safe harbor. Such statements are meant to be made in private, but at least this shows one area of the world where Obama is tough. Unfortunately, Obama still doesn't go far enough in developing a plan for handling Pakistan.

Sen. Obama declined to talk about the need to embrace the Pakistani tribes on the border in order to enlist them in fighting the insurgents, perhaps because saying so would again vindicate one of the strategies Gen. Petraeus and Sen. McCain advocated that caused the war in Iraq to turn around. At the first debate, Obama even failed to embrace this proven concept after McCain mentioned it. While Obama's call for unilateral strikes when necessary is refreshing and commendable, it does not appear that he recognizes that a greater counter-insurgency campaign that involves the tribes is needed. Air strikes and raids absent such a strategy will only increase resentment against the Pakistani government and the U.S. among the population and may even cause the Pakistanis to end their alliance with us. Ironically, Obama is advocating the same tactics he criticized in Afghanistan, when he said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

The one semi-bright spot of an Obama Administration doesn't even come from Obama, it comes from Joe Biden, and he deserves applause for his plan for Sudan. Sen. Biden has called for intervention in Darfur to create a No-Fly Zone over that part of Sudan and to send in NATO peacekeepers (approximately 2500 he said in one speech in Iowa). While it is good that someone has finally presented a plan for Darfur, Biden does not say which allies we can rely upon to help intervene, or how only 2,500 soldiers can stop the genocide. The government-backed militias, much like the situation in Iraq, will attack such peacekeepers in small groups, mixed among the local population in classic insurgency fashion. They will strike even more fear into the local population so they don't cooperate in providing intelligence.

If the Obama-Biden plan is to succeed, it will have to adopt counter-insurgency principles (again, like in Iraq) to kick out the Janjaweed and other insurgent and terrorist forces that will inevitably try to attack such peacekeepers. The focus on the no-fly zone demonstrates a pre-9/11 thinking, where conventional militaries are expected to be used to wage warfare, not unconventional forces like insurgents, militias, and terrorists. The plan calls for tackling the Janjaweed, yet neither Biden or Obama have called for the use of the tactics proven to work in Iraq and other counter-insurgency situations.

Obama's foreign policy is indeed one of contradictions. While he said he'd meet with Ahmadinejad and Chavez, he never even tried to meet with General Petraeus, the foremost authority of what's going on in Iraq. While he wants to strike a deal with Iran and North Korea, which would certainly involve financial aid packages, he opposes free trade agreements with critical U.S. allies like South Korea and Colombia, the latter of which is engaged in a battle with terrorists backed by Chávez. Obama says he favors pushing democracy and human rights in the region, yet wants to pull U.S. forces out of Iraq despite the fact it'd cause the Iraqis to lose such rights. He condemns the way Iran and other countries oppress their people, yet has made no indication that he'd like to see those regimes fall or that he'd even provide non-lethal aid to democratic opposition groups like Reagan did. He says he considers the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as terrorists, but didn't vote for a bill to label them as such. The only coherent message an Obama foreign policy sends is that there is no new strategy, tactic, or idea that should make our enemies worry. And it is for that reason that many of our enemies are supporting Obama.

5. America's enemies favor Obama's policies

When trying to figure out whether Obama's policies are good for national security, it is wise to ask how our enemies view them. The answer is clear: America's enemies favor Obama. This doesn't mean he is in league with them, or anti-American, but it should make voters ask why terrorists are so eager for him to win. What is it about Obama's policies that comfort them?

Let's look at some of these individuals. Ahmed Yousef, a top political advisor for Hamas, told Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily that "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections." The Iranian and Syrian government-controlled media is also pro-Obama. The terrorist group FARC in Colombia, which is backed by Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, according to some of their computer files, seems eager for Obama to win.

The question of Obama's past associations with people like William Ayers should also be mentioned. Why did people like Ayers, the unrepentant former member of Weather Underground who bombed the U.S. Capitol, work alongside Obama? And if it's true that Khalid al-Mansour, a top advisor to a terrorism-supporting Saudi prince, helped raise money for Obama's education, then why? The argument here isn't that Obama is anti-American or shares their views, but something about his viewpoint and policies is bringing people like these to embrace him.

6. Obama will reduce the technological advantages the U.S. military possesses.

In a videotaped address, widely available on YouTube, Obama promises not to militarize space, not fund "unproven missile defense systems," to "slow our development of future combat systems," and to not build any more nuclear weapons, even though new bunker buster nukes are necessary to threaten deep underground bunkers and do far less damage than a normal conventional nuke would. These comments, particularly on "slow[ing] our development of future combat systems" deserves no further comment as most Americans know how critical our technological advances have been to saving the lives of our military men and women and protecting American national security. Future combat systems, as Obama describes them, are the most important asset the U.S. military has, and has saved an enormous amount of lives - including the lives of our soldiers, civilians, and even our enemies.

7. Inexperience

Sen. Obama would be the most inexperienced president in a century, perhaps even in America's history. He has never run a business, been in the military, authored a ground-breaking piece of legislation, or managed or run anything. He has not become go-to expert on any topic, certainly not foreign policy. He was in the Senate for less than two years before preparing to run for president, and during that time, did not show bold leadership on any issue with political consequences. In short, he has not conducted virtually any of the tasks required of a president. As demonstrated, this lack of experience has negatively affected his judgment on various national security and foreign policy topics, particularly with the "surge" which he incorrectly predicted would not work, and could not see was working when the verdict had already been given.

Supporters of Obama may argue that he will have experienced advisors. However, without the right experience and judgment, he cannot pick the correct advisors, nor can he decide which among them are correct. He will fall victim to the "White House bubble" as President George W. Bush did. The failures in Iraq were largely due to the President's inability to consider the viewpoints of those outside his Administration, such as Sen. John McCain, who were warning that the path we were on would lead to failure. The president, lacking experience in foreign affairs and having to rely upon advisors, could not know when such advisors needed to be disregarded. In a time of war, the U.S. must have a president who has the knowledge and experience to make the right calls and not rely upon advisors who will inevitably be wrong at some point. Sen. Obama does not have that experience.

8. His Vice Presidential Pick, Joe Biden

Biden has plenty of experience and is a staunch supporter of the troops. However, his experience is littered with wrong decisions from the Cold War to today.

Let’s start with the Vietnam War, when Biden voted to end U.S. assistance to South Vietnam, causing the unified, communist state of Vietnam to be created. Few people remember that after the U.S. withdrawal, South Vietnam was trying to stand tough against the communists, and only fell after U.S. aid was cut off, thus causing South Vietnam, and therefore America, to lose the war. His poor judgment on foreign policy did not end there. When Ronald Reagan was boosting defense spending and ultimately winning the Cold War, Biden proposed cuts in the defense budget so deep that even some of the most liberal members of Congress opposed it, and he opposed the SDI program that helped bankrupt the Soviets. To put it frankly, had Biden been president then, the Soviet Union may very well still be around.

His errors in the Middle East are also enormous. While working against the strategy that would win the Cold War, Biden threatened to cut off aid to Israel while they were at war with terrorists in Lebanon in 1982. In 1991, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and virtually the entire world united to repel the attack, Biden voted against intervention. His errors on Iraq continued right through today to include his opposition to the surge (despite previously saying the U.S. didn’t send in enough troops to win the war), and his alternative proposal to create three autonomous, sectarian-based states in Iraq was met with widespread anger and protest in that country. The problems with this proposal are too far to go into detail here, but the proposal shows that while he can developed detailed plans, having more detail does not mean the plan is any less of a failure.

Iran is also a major problem that Biden has inadequately handled. He has been close to political activist organizations that are known for lobbying for the removal of sanctions on Iran and developing better ties with the mullahs, some of which even held fundraisers for him. He sees Iran as a partner that can be worked with in Iraq, and voted against the resolution labeling the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization (unlike Obama, he at least showed up to vote against it). Simply put, Biden, like Obama, has a poor record on foreign policy and refuses to see the extremist ideology-driven mullahs for who they are.

9. Energy independence

Sen. McCain advocates an all-in approach towards energy independence, putting forth his “Lexington Project” which aims to launch a program on par with the Manhattan Project to rid the U.S. of dependence on foreign oil, particularly from countries that are using our own money from oil purchases to threaten us. He aims to invest in every type of alternative energy resource, as well as extensive drilling and the construction of nuclear plants. The importance of this effort cannot be understated – it has the potential to boost the U.S. economy and simultaneously bankrupt many of America’s enemies. It is the game changer in the War on Terror. Sen. Obama, while claiming he’ll pursue a massive undertaking for energy independence focusing on alternative sources, is against offshore drilling. Of course, when the polls showed a large majority of the American people supported it, he changed his tune and said that he could support limited drilling if necessary to pass bi-partisan legislation.

America needs more than “limited” drilling. Such efforts should be environmentally safe but they cannot be limited. This is simply the best weapon in the War on Terror and against other adversaries like Russia. It is more powerful than guns or bombs, more effective than any type of diplomacy imaginable, and more critical to our economic survival than any bailout or tax cut. The two candidates have said what they will do: McCain will try everything, and has put together, a comprehensive, detailed plan, and Obama has proposed a budget solely based on alternative energy sources without a detailed plan on how to accomplish energy independence.

10. The pre-9/11 philosophy of an Obama Administration.

On ABC News Obama said that the prosecution of the terrorists who carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing demonstrated an effective counter-terrorism strategy. It is clear that Obama does not believe that 9/11 and events thereafter show the need to go on the offensive, and does not understand that terrorist organizations can only survive with safe harbor, financing, arming and training from other countries whose governments sponsor them or look the other way and let them assemble. Obama subscribes to the outdated policy that terrorism is primarily a law enforcement issue, rather than a military one.

Even Obama’s example shows his flawed ideas on terrorism. A link has been drawn between the cells responsible for the 1993 bombing and the 9/11 attack, proving that the law enforcement approach towards terrorism completely failed. Obama also apparently doesn’t know that the bomb maker for the attack was harbored by Saddam Hussein’s government after the attack took place, again demonstrating the lunacy of focusing on defensive, rather than offensive, tactics. Terrorists cannot attack the U.S. without some sort of safe harbor overseas.

It is an inconvenient truth for people like Obama, who wants to immediately leave Iraq, but failure there will result in a new safe harbor for Iranian proxies, al Qaeda and other terrorists who will use the territory to execute new 9/11s. The pre-911 law-enforcement strategy will result in failure. No one likes the fact that military offensives are required in order to fight the terrorists, and everyone is exhausted due to the high cost of the Iraq War. But the failure to launch an offensive strategy is what brought us 9/11, and Americans must be reminded of that, rather than saying the police and FBI can handle it.

The common thread weaving together Obama’s foreign policy is disbelief that some foreign actors are irrational. It’s understandable why Obama thinks this way if you look at his life. He’s won over virtually everyone he’s met, and it’s hard not to like him personally. He’s in for a rude awakening if he becomes president. He won’t be able to win over Ahmadinejad and his diplomacy will simply provide them with more time to develop nukes and sponsor terrorists. His withdrawal from Iraq won’t suddenly make Middle Easterners stop hating us and will instead allow terrorists to create a safe harbor to launch new 9/11s. He can’t rely upon his advisors, because he lacks the knowledge and experience to know when they are right or wrong. Simply put, based on the issues of national security and foreign policy, the American people need to question Obama’s qualifications for the presidency.
* Published in cooperation with Family Security Matters.