[Politics] Obama: The Foreign Policy Whipping Boy

When it comes to the discussion of foreign policy in the campaign for president, it seems that Barack Obama cannot get a break. In fact, he has become the whipping boy of both Democrats and Republicans because of the things he has said. Ironically, his has been the most decisive stance on foreign policy matters, that is, the least nuanced and unclear position in the race. Last week, Obama said that he would be willing to meet unconditionally with leaders of Iran and Syria, for which he was lambasted as weak and naive, and this week, he has said that he would be willing to use U.S. forces to hit Taliban and al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan if President Pervez Musharraf would not take action. For this he was also attacked by many. The Washington Post has coverage.

Again, the irony of it is that these are the most decisive foreign policy statements I have heard so far in the debate. Other candidates discussing foreign policy matters, including Iraq (for which Obama is one of the few to present a plan to leave), candidates have generally been making statements that begin with phrases like , "We have to be careful..." and "What we don't want..." At a time when President Bush is criticized for everything but his decisiveness, you would think Obama's certitude would be considered an asset. Certainly, if a Republican, like Rudy Giuliani, had made such statements about Pakistan, he would have been heralded as decidedly tough on terrorism.

[And let's just first be clear that anyone pretending that our military is simply standing on the Afghan border to Pakistan with a pair of binoculars, and have never once crossed that border for an operation, are naive. So, any criticism of Obama's plan is completely premature to a full disclosure of what our military has already been engaging in (and rightfully so) with regard to Pakistan. Of course, this does lend itself to making Joe Biden's criticism, that "The way to deal with it is not to announce it, but to do it," more apt (though it is certainly understandable that Obama wants to be clear that he has an actionable stance on dealing with terrorism at a time when he is being attacked for being weak).]

What is also ironic is that people who voted to invade Iraq in a much more belligerent (and overly extensive) manner, now say Obama is over-stepping. While it is true that Pakistan is an ally, it is not a stabilizing force in the region, versus Saddam Hussein, who, for all of his immoral qualities, seemed to make the Middle East more stable than it has been since his ouster. In other words, the value of an ally can be measured not only by how they help us, but also in what kind of stability they bring to regions, particularly ones of our interest. So, if Pakistan is harboring Osama bin Laden, even if it is not by their government's own wishes, what gives them a greater right to sovereignty than Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter?

The fact is, not all allies are created equal. Pakistan and Britain are both allies of the U.S., but we should never mistake our relationship with Britain for our relationship with Pakistan simply because we use the same word to describe them. Calling Pakistan an ally is a bit like calling your travel agent a friend out of convenience. It is a strategic, not an idealogical, alliance. As such, we should treat it strategically.

Pervez Musharaf is not making attacks on Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters a top priority because it is causing a major rift in his country. Pakistan is currently experiencing instability because of Musharaf's alliance with the U.S., which many Pakistani Muslim fundamentalists are extrmely upset about. Thus, for him to crack down on al-Qaeda in his country could cause it even more instability. Meanwhile, not to oust those enemies in Pakistan could mean greater instability in the U.S. People (and not the other Democratic front runners, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards who seem to agree with the idea) have criticized Obama's plan as provoking a nuclear naton, and also an ally. But what if Pakistan became overrun by al-Qaeda and Taliban loyalists precisey because their forces were not disrupted? Wouldn't that make it even more likely that such forces could achieve the worst case scenario and acquire a nuclear weapon?

Thus, getting rid of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan should be a top priority. But how can we do this without causing major upheaval?

Firstly, we should not be going after fighters inside Pakistani borders at the expense of Pakistan's relative stability. And, actually, one of the best ways to do that, may be to give our alliance with them the appearance of strife. If the U.S. were to (seemingly) act unilaterally with operations inside the Pakistani border, that could give Musharraf a reason to express deep anger with the U.S. while allowing us to root out major al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. Afterward, we could pay retribution to Pakistan (by giving them tanks or planes, or making some other concession) and seemingly do so under pressure from Musharraf so that he could save face in his own country.

Obviously, it could never be as simple as I have suggested, but the point remains that we must be strong and decisive and we shouldn't let the word "ally" dictate whether or not we make a pro-active effort to capture Osama bin Laden and stop al-Qaeda from gaining power (which they are successfully doing according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate).

Politics is perception, and now, maybe more than ever, we need ot play to the perception as much as to the reality. Thus, our best bet may not to have Pakistan as an out-and-out ally, as this is damaging to Musharraf's ability to control his country, but to have an alliance that has the appearance of some animosity.