The Obama Foreign Policy Follies

These aren't merely unforced errors or rookie mistakes, but clear enunciations of what Obama intends to do should he ever be elected President of the United States. He wants to engage in direct talks with Iran, and he repeats it for good measure all while trying to claim that President Bush's speech before the Israeli Knesset applied to him.

Here's the thing.

So, not only is he whining about Bush calling out appeasers - a statement not aimed solely at Obama, but at the appeasers around the world - but he goes ahead and reiterates his statement that he'd meet with the Iranians without preconditions.

Idiot. From a purely political breakdown, Obama's playing right into GOP hands (or Hillary if you're still on the fence), because he's showing that he is indeed an appeaser.

Even bigger idiots? Those who think that Obama knows the first thing about foreign policy.

Those who nonchalantly think that the US will survive four years of an Obama administration aren't paying attention. This isn't mere hyperbole, but consider what we're facing - a regime in Iran that isn't deterred by force, and instead would welcome a nuclear attack on its own soil after lobbing nukes at its enemies because of the fulfillment of an apocalyptic religious vision. Iran wants nukes, and is clearly doing everything imaginable to obtain them.

We're giving nuclear materials to Saudi Arabia because we'd rather see the Saudis go toe to toe with teh Iranians than the Israelis, but the sad truth is that Israel and the US will likely have to go deal with the mad mullahs in Iran before long. Obama wont do it. Bill Clinton wouldn't go toe to toe with al Qaeda, so what makes you think that Obama would go after Iran should it engage in acts of war against the US directly or via Hamas, Hizbullah, or any other proxy?

Obama will come home after one of those meetings declaring peace in our time and that we've got peace. The cost? Well, probably Iraq, Kuwait, access to the Gulf, and Israel for good measure. But hey, we wont have the US in a war. Never mind that oil prices would probably double again what our current prices are.

And another thing; Obama wants us to believe that cowboy diplomacy (aka Bush foreign policy) is the wrong tact? How is it then that the Europeans, who supposedly disdained American foreign policy, have now elected pro-US leaders who are predisposed to the US foreign policy? It would appear that the Europeans have come full circle and realized that appeasement, such as the Spanish case following the Madrid bombings, did not lead to peace, but rather more violence spurred on by the same terrorist groups, whose demands never change - submission to their version of Islam. In other words, President Bush's foreign policy visions have gained traction, even while the Congressional Democrats and presidential candidates do everything in their power to undermine the Administration's foreign policy at every turn.

There is one further thing to consider. It's a thought experiment for Obama and his fanatics:

Who attacked the US on 9/11, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, African Embassies?

If you said al Qaeda, you haven't completely drunk the kool aid and can continue [after all, not only does the US, UN and pretty much everyone else say al Qaeda was behind those attacks, but al Qaeda itself takes credit for them].

Where is al Qaeda operating now? [Note: this isn't a difficult question, and isn't asking where al Qaeda was operating on March 1, 2003 aka pre invasion of Iraq, but where one can find al Qaeda in any significant numbers.]

If you answered countries including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, you've been paying attention.

So, if al Qaeda is currently operating in Iraq, how come Barack Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq immediately when we've got US forces there killing al Qaeda on a regular and ongoing basis all while denying them safe havens there?

The sputtering response will likely resort to some riff on the following: "they wouldn't be in Iraq unless we didn't invade Iraq". It completely misses the point - a regular theme among Obama folks and the left in general. The terrorists are there now, and we're killing them there now. If the US leaves Iraq, that means that our ability to kill al Qaeda, the same terrorist group responsible for all those attacks on the US, including 9/11, would have free run in Iraq and use it as a potential safe haven from which to plot additional attacks against US interests.

Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq, which undermines US national security. It is really that cut and dry. I'm sure he'll mutter something along the politics of fear pablum he spouts off every so often when someone has the audacity to question his politics, but the sad fact is that he doesn't have clue 1 about foreign policy, national security (ours), and what it takes to defeat our enemies. It means denying battlespace to our enemies, and staying in those locations to continue killing and defeating those enemies.

UPDATE:
So, we now have Obama on the record considering that some of Hamas and Hizbullah claims are legitimate. Which claims is Obama referring to? Hamas and Hizbullah both seek Israel's destruction. It's their core tenet, so what exactly does Obama consider legitimate claims? This is from David Brooks' interview of Obama:

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”

I want someone to actually ask Obama what exactly are those legitimate claims that these two terrorist groups have that Obama thinks are being weakened by their ongoing war against Israel.