Obama’s position on Iraq is “extremely risky,” Democrat Michael O’Hanlon wrote for Politico, as quoted by William Kristol in his latest column for the New York Times. “Getting all American combat forces out of Iraq by April 2010, a position he has held while we were losing the war, during the comeback phase, and now while we are winning, is very imprudent and I continue to hope and pray that he rethinks it.”
It is a telling admission, one that should scare the bejeebus out of those who consider foreign policy one of the major issues this year, and who understand that the Middle East and especially Iraq continues to be a volatile region, in which one major mistake can cost thousands, tens of thousands even, their lives.
Obama has many strengths, but his views on Iraq are not among them. His determination to withdraw troops as soon as possible, nay, sooner, could very well result in many thousands of innocent and not so innocent Iraqis losing their lives. If the U.S. would withdraw prematurely the country could fall back into chaos, to the civil war that raged for years, until President George W. Bush implemented the now famous surge strategy.
This surge was opposed by Barack Obama but supported by John McCain. At the end of 2008 we can unequivocally say that the latter was right, whereas the former was horribly wrong.
Gambling with regards to domestic policies is fine. America’s domestic policies are not of anyone’s business, except for Americans themselves of course. But the country’s foreign policy is the business of others as well. If America’s foreign policy is unwise, the rest of the world or at least significant parts of it suffer.
Hope and prayers are not a good basis for one’s vote. If one is dependent on hope and prayer in order for the candidate one supports not to make a tragic mistake which could cost thousands their lives, one should reconsider one’s vote.
One owes it to the world.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
In light of the new audio of Sen. Obama indicating his desire for the Supreme Court to do more to cause Redistribution of Wealth (Socialism 101), this again calls into question Sen. Obama’s patriotism. It’s like he wants to stomp on the U. S. Constitution, just like Ayers is frequently pictured standing on the American Flag –
Senator Obama’s Patriotism – a Veteran’s Perspective
http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/senator-obama%e2%80%99s-patriotism-a-veteran%e2%80%99s-perspective/
Nice job of not including O’Hanlon’s endorsement of Obama over McCain. Ignoring the endorsement takes O’Hanlon’s Arean posting out of context. Even Kristol included the endorsement in his NYT’s article.