Obama’s
Abominable Claptrap
By Siddique Malik
Louisville, KY
smalik94@hotmail.com
Obviously,
Senator Barrack Obama (D: IL) believes that he
can prop up his stature as an American presidential
candidate by trying the Karl Rove methodology,
i.e. pretend to be tough on national security
while ignoring the contravening facts and circumstances.
In a speech on Aug. 1, 2007, at the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars, in Washington,
he said that as president he would order the US
armed forces into an anti-terrorist operation
in Pakistan’s tribal areas abutting Afghanistan,
without Pakistan’s permission, if he was
provided “actionable intelligence”
that terrorists were hiding there.
By making this statement, the senator from Illinois
has proved that he too suffers from the same weakness
that afflicts some of his fellow presidential
aspirants and for that matter some other American
politicians and leaders, including the current
occupant of the White House: A lack of understanding
of important issues and the consequent urge to
hide this drawback by making jingoistic comments
and taking and supporting absurd actions.
This is the kind of behavior that pushed America
into the mess in which it today finds itself,
from Afghanistan to Iraq, from the environment
to civil liberties, and from the matter of public
health information to that of national security.
When and if the US acquires “actionable
intelligence” about terrorists in Pakistan’s
tribal areas -- an area that can be compared with
what was once America’s Wild West --, would
it not be more logical to pass the information
to the Pakistani government, an ardent supporter
of America’s struggle to eradicate terrorism
and ask it to mount the required operation and
offer all possible assistance? Pakistani soldiers
would have a much higher chance of succeeding
in an operation in their own territory than would
the American soldiers, most of whom would be spotted
from a distance, hardly a helpful situation in
a secret mission.
If Obama thinks that either Pakistan is hesitant
to act against terrorists or its soldiers are
not capable of launching a successful anti-terrorist
operation, he is badly mistaken. I would strongly
suggest him to check the facts. Pakistan has done
a lot in the so-called war on terrorism. It has
captured many terrorists and handed them over
to the US. Hundreds of Pakistani soldiers have
lost their lives in hot pursuit of terrorists.
As far as the possibility of failure is concerned,
no army is immune to it. What is the rate of success
of the US troops and their NATO allies in Afghanistan
in curbing terrorism and eliminating the Taliban
menace? It is easy to pin the blame of our failures
on the porous Afghanistan-Pakistan border. If
it is true that Pakistan is not curbing terrorists’
movements, who is permitting them to walk freely
into Afghanistan? How much success did the US
have in curbing the terrorists in Iraq? Remember
the team of soldiers that was secretly ferried
into Iran on helicopters on April 25, 1980 with
an order from President Carter to rescue American
diplomats whom Iran had taken hostages? It failed.
It is a well known fact that Pakistan quickly
complies whenever asked to take a specific action
against terrorists. The dismal state of affairs
in the “war on terrorism” is not Pakistan’s
fault; it is the result of incessant absurdities
in Washington. In its desperation to find a scapegoat
for its failures, Washington recently started
to talk about intruding into Pakistan as if doing
so would bring terrorism to a quick end. Such
an action would backfire and further tarnish America’s
already negative image in the Muslim world. By
borrowing a bankrupt idea from the man he intends
to replace, Obama has shown that he is equally
devoid of the leadership qualities.
What about the matter of international law? The
main argument of the opponents of the Iraq war
was based upon the lack of its legitimacy. Today,
the aberrant theory of pre-emption stands discredited.
This is with reference to Iraq, a country with
which America did not have friendly relations
at the time we attacked it. Obama, who by the
virtue of being an attorney should understand
the intricacies of international law better than
President Bush, would violate the territorial
integrity of a country with which America has
friendly relations.
If this reckless action is ever taken, it would
amount to a much bigger insanity than was the
action to attack Iraq without a proper plan. It
would destabilize Pakistan to the extent that
its pro-US government could be toppled and fall
into the hands of a clique of Muslim extremists
not much different from the ruling Ayatollahs
of Iran. This would not be a desirable outcome
in a country with a nuclear button.
Obama’s remarks at the WWICS reveal that
his opposition to the Iraq war could be based
upon hindsight, not intellect. He shows an utter
lack of understanding of international law and
affairs and how this matter should interact with
the issue of terrorism. It also shows his predisposition
to invoke the “cowboy” approach simply
to appear tough at an immense expense to an objective
at hand.
Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, one of Obama’s
opponents in the race for Democratic nomination
for president, was right when she asserted that
he was naïve in foreign affairs. Americans
have had enough of laggardly conduct in the Oval
Office, and I hope that they would ensure that
at noon on Jan. 20, 2009, the helm does not simply
pass from incompetence to naiveté.
Postscript: I had just finished writing this article
when a news item emerged about Obama praising
Pakistan’s anti-terrorist efforts. Obviously,
he was trying to mitigate the outrage he had triggered.
But he did not retract his original comments or
recognize their flawed premise. He certainly has
a lot in common with George W. Bush. He would
never be wrong, either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
