In this election cycle, many have compared Obama's relative lack of experience to John McCain's long service in the military and in the U.S. Senate. We don't believe there has been any President since George Washington that has been fully ready for what awaits them when they step into the Oval Office. It's true that from an experience standpoint Obama is probably more equipped to fight an insurgence from Wisconsin than a war against terror but our opinion was formed more by his ever shifting foreign policy statements than by his experience in government.
Yesterday, we watched The One Named O deliver what was billed as a "major foreign policy speech" (read the full text here). While peppered with focus group bullet points like "misled us into a misguided war," "fight a war that hasn't made us safer," and our favorite "redeploy our troops," Obama's Iraq new strategy sounds curiously familiar saying that he will "consult with commanders on the ground" regarding troop levels in Iraq. In fact, it sounds an awful lot like a strategy proposed and implemented over a year ago.
"Troop levels will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington, D.C."Obama's new strategy for Iraq even embraces the surge and its tactics.
It has been 18 months since President Bush announced the surge. As I have said many times, our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence. General Petraeus has used new tactics to protect the Iraqi population. We have talked directly to Sunni tribes that used to be hostile to America, and supported their fight against al-Qaida. Shiite militias have generally respected a cease-fire. Those are the facts, and all Americans welcome them.All of this has got to be driving the DailyKooks and the MoveOn.Ogres absolutely mad. Not only does Obama acknowledge the hated surge, he complements General Petraeus on his new tactics. If you'll remember, just last year the MoveOn.Ogres were branding the creator of the surge a traitor in a New York times full page ad (view it here).
Why the change? Well, interestingly enough Obama seems to have taken the advice of the same magazine that published his least favorite political "satire" - The New Yorker. In a July 7th article (read it here) the New Yorker's George Packer opined that Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan wouldn't fly in the face of the reality of today's Iraq and wondered whether he would "publicly change course" - Tuesday Obama did.
To make matters worse for the lunatic fringe, Obama proposes his own surge into Afghanistan and perhaps even Pakistan.
Look, we're not against a troop surge in Afghanistan if the "commanders on the ground" deem it necessary. It's important that the United States win any military conflict we are engaged in. The threat of military force must remain credible and overwhelming. Therefore, anything less than victory is unacceptable in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Obama seems to be advocating invading a sovereign nation (Pakistan) that is cooperating with us (at least on some levels) while relying on hot air alone to constrain the very real threat of a nuclear Iran that has a track record of non-cooperation and belligerence towards the west. We don't believe for a second that The One Named O would authorize a strike into Pakistan under just about any circumstances and we'd bet you that the rest of the world and especially terrorists like Bin Laden don't believe it either. By the way, someone should remind Obama that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, Iran probably does not - at least for now.
Foreign policy is not based entirely upon the events in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. Obama brought up the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. He's right - our dependence on foreign sources of energy is a national security issue. However, you can't take anyone seriously when their solution to our foreign oil dependence doesn't include domestic drilling. Like it or not our country runs on oil and other carbon based fuels and no amount of money will change that fact over night. NIMBYs, environmental groups, and their allies in Congress are directly responsible for our country's foreign energy dependence though drilling and refining restrictions, and the costs and red tape associated with building nuclear power plants. Domestic oil production has to be part of the solution.
Worst of all, Obama cites as his most pressing national security threat "the long-term threat from climate change." It's hard to believe that a seemingly rational man would make changing the weather his top national security priority. Climate change may be a political reality, but its causal relationship to man's use of carbon based fuels is disputed at the very least. Moreover, it's science based on consensus not empirical evidence and can only be considered theory.
The fact is, there are people in this world who want to hurt Americans simply because we are the most successful nation in the world. You can't buy them off and you can't talk them to death. They have but one objective, the annihilation of innocent life in a free society - ours. That's not theory or a political reality, it's is and nearly always has been a proven fact of our existence.
We cannot afford another war fought in the fog of politics from the White House. We cannot afford a President whose foreign policy shifts with the winds of political expediency. And we simply can't afford a President whose top national security threat is a concept based on theoretical science and political coercion. In short, we cannot afford Barrack Hussein Obama II - he is unfit for command.
Yeah, we know that this is site is called EyeOnAlbuquerque. We get it. However, we've got enough problems around here without having to deal with national debacles. So, until we're safe from national politics here in EyeLand, we'll be talking about national and state issues that affect us as well.