“Neocon” or “Not Ready for Prime Time”?

I pilloried – justifiably – Obie’s saber-rattling over Pakistan – but Taranto notes that at least there’s some good news in Obama’s flub:

As a candidate recently pilloried by fellow Democrats as a foreign policy naïf, Mr. Obama’s remarks may be no more than an effort to don a Mike Dukakis helmet. And given the Senator’s consistent opposition to the war in Iraq, it may seem peculiar that he should now propose invading a nuclear-armed Muslim country–all the more so since Mr. Obama let slip Thursday in an interview that as President he would rule out the use of nuclear weapons “in any circumstance.”

But in a primary contest where Democrats seem to vie with one another for the title of who will pull out of Iraq the fastest, Mr. Obama’s speech is at least a recognition that he’d be willing to use military force somewhere. It’s also a reminder to antiwar Democratic voters that the terror threat won’t vanish when the Bush Administration does, and that U.S. soldiers will have to be put in harm’s way again.

Mr. Obama:  Pakistani WMDs most definitely do exist.  And what a wonderful way to radicalize not only Musharraf’s society, but to re-radicalize Pakistan’s intelligence service, which was until recently overrun with Wahhabi sympathizers and actively aided (and, no doubt, in many quarters still aids) Al-Quaeda.

Still…:

Too bad, then, that Mr. Obama instantly squandered an opportunity for seriousness by insisting that Iraq is “the wrong battlefield” in the war on terror. In case he hasn’t noticed, Iraq today is the main battlefield where U.S. forces are confronting, and killing, al Qaeda on a daily basis. And GIs don’t have to invade another country to do it.

The best news about Obie’s jape, of course, is it shows that being “anti-war” is losing at least some of its cachet on the left – at least, in responsible quarters on the left: 

Still, Mr. Obama’s willingness to draw appropriate conclusions from realities in Pakistan stands in refreshing contrast to his Democratic opponents. Tragic as a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be, it would be compounded if Democrats draw the lesson never again to use or threaten force abroad. By distancing himself from his party’s pacifist wing, Mr. Obama is growing up as a candidate.

Worth a read.

And then read Victor Davis Hanson’s detailed takedown of our newly hawkish überliberal.

2 thoughts on ““Neocon” or “Not Ready for Prime Time”?

  1. Let me get this straight, you pillory Obama about his comments to invade Pakistan, then completely let slide the comments made from the Republican front runner who advocates bombing Pakistan?

    “I said it a long time ago … America is too consumed with Iraq,” he said. “We’ve got to be patient and committed (in Iraq), but we’ve got to multitask. We’ve got to have conversations beyond Iraq. We’ve got to talk about Iran — Iran is more dangerous than Iraq — and we have to get the job done in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.”

    He said that might involve reorganizing United Nations forces, committing more U.S. resources, considering U.S.-led airstrikes on al-Qaeda targets in northern Pakistan or taking a tougher line with Musharraf — or pursuing all those steps.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-07-19-giuliani-pakistan_N.htm

  2. Let’s be more clear here Fulcrum.

    Obama said he would send in troops to deal with the IF Musharraf refused to take action to contain the terrorists hiding in the mountains. Guliani said he would call for US strikes on Pakistan regardless of Musharraf.

    Hope that’s all cleared up…

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.